1959 (5) TMI 57 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Misappropriation of goods by the appellant.
3. False explanation and absence from duty.
4. Prosecution's burden of proof and appellant's defense.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The appellant was convicted under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which states: "A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do." The court emphasized the definitions of 'dishonestly' (Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code) and 'fraudulently' (Section 25 of the Indian Penal Code), noting that wrongful gain includes wrongful retention and wrongful loss includes being kept out of the property as well as being wrongfully deprived of property.

2. Misappropriation of goods by the appellant:
The appellant, employed as an Assistant Storekeeper in the Central Tractor Organisation, was responsible for taking delivery of a consignment of iron and steel from the Tata Iron & Steel Co. at the Delhi Railway Station. The prosecution alleged that the appellant misappropriated a major portion of this consignment. The appellant admitted to taking delivery of the goods but claimed that he moved them to another Railway Siding known as Saloon Siding. However, the High Court did not accept this evidence, and it was established that the goods never reached the Central Tractor Organisation.

3. False explanation and absence from duty:
The appellant provided a false explanation on October 7, 1950, stating he had lost the Railway Receipt and credit notes. He was also absent from duty from October 4 to October 7, 1950, until he was summoned by Mr. F.C. Gera. The court noted that giving a false account of what he had done with the goods received by him could be treated as a strong circumstance against the accused person. The court cited previous judgments to support the notion that false explanations and absconding can be considered evidence of intent to misappropriate.

4. Prosecution's burden of proof and appellant's defense:
The prosecution proved that the appellant took delivery of the goods and removed them from the Railway Siding, but the goods did not reach the Central Tractor Organisation. The appellant's defense that he moved the goods to the Saloon Siding was not accepted. The prosecution also attempted to show that the goods were disposed of by the appellant through Gurbachan Singh, but they failed to produce Gurbachan Singh or prove that the goods recovered from Amar Singh's place were part of the consignment. The court held that it is not necessary or possible for the prosecution to prove the precise manner in which the goods were misappropriated, as the essential element is the dishonest intention of the appellant.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as the evidence showed that he dishonestly misappropriated the goods entrusted to him. The appeal was dismissed.