9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Mis-directions in the charge to the jury. 2. Irregularities in the course of the investigation. 3. Attempt to cheat the Government of India. 4. Use of forged documents. 5. Convictions and sentences by the Sessions Court. 6. High Court's findings and conclusions. 7. Scope of the fourth charge. 8. Admissibility and relevance of the first information report. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Mis-directions in the Charge to the Jury: The High Court identified two mis-directions in the charge to the jury. The learned Sessions Judge read portions of a complaint (Ex. Z. 26) filed by Mrs. Bapasola, which contained irrelevant and prejudicial statements about the first accused's past misdeeds and fraudulent acts. The judge's caution to the jury to disregard these statements was deemed insufficient to undo the prejudice caused. The complaint was not a first information report (FIR) but was treated as such, leading to further misdirection. 2. Irregularities in the Course of the Investigation: The High Court noted several irregularities during the investigation but did not detail them extensively. These irregularities, combined with the mis-directions, contributed to the decision to set aside the convictions. 3. Attempt to Cheat the Government of India: The prosecution alleged that the accused inflated the cost of machinery purchased from Ramdas and Sons by forging documents and submitted inflated bills to cheat the Government. The High Court found that while there was an attempt to defraud the Government, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were responsible for this fraud. 4. Use of Forged Documents: The accused were charged with forgery of a valuable security (Ex. D) and using it as genuine. The High Court found that the interpolation of an inflated figure in Ex. D was done before the contract with the Government was executed, making it impossible to attribute criminal liability to the accused for this act. The contract with the Government required bills to be submitted based on actual costs plus a percentage, and the prosecution could not prove that the accused submitted bills with inflated costs. 5. Convictions and Sentences by the Sessions Court: The Sessions Court convicted the accused based on the jury's verdict. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 417 read with Sections 511 and 34 IPC, and three years under Section 471-467 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused No. 2 received similar sentences with an additional conviction under Section 467 read with Section 109 IPC. The High Court set aside these convictions due to mis-directions and irregularities. 6. High Court's Findings and Conclusions: The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Chainani J. concluded that while a fraud was attempted, it could not be proven that the accused were responsible. Bavdekar J. agreed but added that the case did not go beyond the stage of preparation, thus no attempt to cheat the Government was made. 7. Scope of the Fourth Charge: The fourth charge alleged that the accused cheated the Government by submitting inflated bills. The High Court interpreted this charge narrowly, focusing on the bills submitted to the Government. The learned Sessions Judge and the High Court found that the accused did not submit bills based on inflated costs of machinery, thus the charge of cheating was not established. 8. Admissibility and Relevance of the First Information Report: The learned Sessions Judge treated Mrs. Bapasola's complaint as an FIR, which was incorrect. The document was not the first complaint made to the police and was thus inadmissible under Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr. P. C. The judge's use of this document as substantive evidence was a clear misdirection, prejudicing the jury against the accused. Conclusion: The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision to set aside the convictions, though for different reasons. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the mis-directions and irregularities in the trial warranted acquittal.
|
