9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under sections 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Disagreement between Sessions Judge and High Court on the verdict. 3. Procedure followed by the Sessions Judge under section 307. 4. Status of the appellant as a servant or agent. 5. Violation of section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Examination of the appellant under section 342. Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under sections 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code by the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant was the chief promoter of a Co-operative Housing Society and collected money from prospective shareholders. The charge under section 409 was for misappropriation of funds, while the charge under section 477-A was for falsifying records. The trial resulted in conflicting verdicts by the jury and assessors, leading to a reference to the High Court by the Sessions Judge. The High Court upheld the conviction under both sections and sentenced the appellant accordingly. Regarding the procedure followed by the Sessions Judge under section 307, it was contended that the entire case should have been referred to the High Court when there are inconsistent findings on multiple charges. However, the judgment clarified that section 307 applies only to trials with a jury, not assessors. Therefore, the Sessions Judge's decision to refer only part of the case did not violate any legal provision, as confirmed by precedents from various High Courts. The issue of the appellant's status as a servant or agent was raised, suggesting that he should have been charged under section 408 instead of section 409. The judgment analyzed the distinction between a servant and an agent, concluding that the appellant, as the Secretary of the Society, acted as an agent. The legal implications of charging under section 408 or 409 were deemed insignificant in this case, as the severity of the sentence would remain the same. Furthermore, the appellant raised concerns about the violation of section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to multiple charges. However, it was determined that section 235 applied as the offenses arose from the same transaction. The appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice as required by law, leading to the dismissal of this objection. Lastly, the appellant's contention regarding the examination under section 342 was addressed. The judgment noted that this objection was not raised in lower courts and lacked merit, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was deemed unsuccessful, and the conviction under sections 409 and 477-A was upheld by the Supreme Court.
|
