1967 (1) TMI 86 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was an agent of the Government in respect of the wheat received under the agreement.
2. Whether the property in the stock of wheat received by the appellant under the agreement passed to him.
3. Whether the case in Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1960 was rightly decided.
4. Whether the appellant committed criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant was an agent of the Government in respect of the wheat received under the agreement:
The agreement (Ext. 4/8) between the appellant and the Government of West Bengal was scrutinized to determine if the appellant acted as an agent. The court noted that the appellant was described as a "retailer" and not as an "agent." The definition of an agent under Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act was considered, which involves a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The court found that the appellant was selling wheat on his own behalf and not on behalf of the Government. The various obligations imposed on the appellant, such as maintaining stock registers, issuing cash memos, and selling at a fixed price, were seen as restrictions on the sale rather than indicators of an agency relationship. Therefore, the court concluded that the appellant was not an agent of the Government in respect of the wheat received under the agreement.

2. Whether the property in the stock of wheat received by the appellant under the agreement passed to him:
The court examined the terms of the agreement to determine if the property in the wheat passed to the appellant. Clauses 4 and 5 of the agreement required the appellant to deposit the price of the wheat, which was interpreted as paying the price in advance. Clause 6 provided for the delivery of wheat to the appellant, and the court concluded that the property in the wheat passed to the appellant upon delivery. The subsequent clauses (7 to 13) were seen as conditions of resale and not as reservations of the right of disposal by the Government. Clause 17, which dealt with the disposal of wheat upon termination of the agreement, was found to be a collateral contract regulating the subsequent disposal of the wheat. Therefore, the court held that the property in the wheat passed to the appellant upon delivery.

3. Whether the case in Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1960 was rightly decided:
In Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1960, it was held that the retailer was an agent of the Government and that the property in the goods did not pass to him. The Full Bench found that this decision was incorrect. The court noted that the agreement in the present case and the one in the 1960 case were identical. The court held that the property in the wheat passed to the appellant upon delivery and that the appellant was not an agent of the Government. Therefore, the decision in Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1960 was not rightly decided.

4. Whether the appellant committed criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code:
The court examined whether the appellant could be held guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust include entrustment with property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion of that property. The court found that the appellant was the owner of the wheat upon delivery and that there was no entrustment of the wheat by the Government to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant could not be held guilty of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the appellant was not guilty of any offense under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. The appellant was acquitted, and his bail bond was discharged. If any fine had been paid, it was to be refunded to the appellant.