1965 (5) TMI 35 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Non-production of documents requested by the appellant.
3. High Court's jurisdiction under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to admit additional evidence.
4. Validity of the High Court's decision to reverse the acquittal and convict the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code:
The appellant, a traveling salesman, was convicted under Section 408 IPC for criminal breach of trust. He was found guilty of not depositing sums of Rs. 300, Rs. 240, and Rs. 1502, received on behalf of his company, with the company cashier. The Presidency Magistrate initially acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of the doubt due to non-production of certain documents by the complainant.

2. Non-production of documents requested by the appellant:
The appellant had requested the production of several documents, including the Sale Book, Collection Register, Challans, Agency Ledger, Staff Security Deposit Register, and his commission account. The complainant's counsel responded, citing various objections and conditions for producing the documents. The documents were not produced during the trial, leading to the appellant's acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.

3. High Court's jurisdiction under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to admit additional evidence:
The High Court, upon appeal by the complainant, ordered the production of the requested documents and the taking of additional oral evidence. The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 428 CrPC by allowing the prosecution to improve its case with additional evidence. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 428 applies to all appeals under Chapter XXXI of the CrPC, including appeals against acquittals. The Court emphasized that additional evidence should be taken only if necessary to prevent a failure of justice and must be exercised sparingly.

4. Validity of the High Court's decision to reverse the acquittal and convict the appellant:
The High Court found overwhelming evidence proving the appellant's receipt of the money and his failure to deposit it. The additional evidence demonstrated that the appellant did not deposit the sums with the cashier. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the High Court acted within its powers under the Code. The Court noted that the High Court's decision to take additional evidence was justified to ensure fair play and justice, especially since the appellant himself had demanded the production of those documents during the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the High Court had correctly exercised its discretion under Section 428 CrPC to admit additional evidence, which was necessary to prevent a failure of justice. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 408 IPC were thus upheld.