9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (3) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence passed upon the first appellant to rigorous imprisonment for three years and the sentence against the second appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have appealed to this court with special leave. 2. The facts which gave rise to the charge against the two appellants are briefly these : On June 15, 1948, the Textile Commissioner invited tenders for dyeing Pugree Cloth. The Parikh Dyeing and Printing Mills Ltd., Bombay - hereinafter to be referred to as the company - of which the first appellant was the Managing Director and the second appellant was a Director and technical expert, submitted a tender which was accepted on July 27, 1948, subject to certain general and special conditions. Pursuant to the contract, 2,51,059 3/4 yards of cloth were supplied to the company for dyeing. The company failed to dye the cloth within the stipulated period and there was correspondence in that behalf between the company and the Textile Commissioner. Approximately 1,11,000 yards out of the cloth were dyed and delivered to the Textile Commissioner. On March 25, 1950, the company requested the Textile Commissioner to can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the government and the same had to be accounted for, and that the instructions to deliver 51,756 yards to the Chief Ordnance Officer, Ordnance Depot, Sewri, had not been attended to. The Textile Commissioner called upon the company to send its representatives to clarify the position and to account for the material. After receiving this letter, the second appellant attended at the office of the Textile Commissioner and on November 27, 1952, wrote a letter stating that the main factors involved in not delivering the goods in finished state was that the material was very old , was dhobi bleached in different lots , was bleached under different conditions and therefore unsuitable for vat colour dyeing in heavy shades , that it varied in length, weight, and finish and had lost affinity for vat colour dyeing . It was also stated that the company had in dyeing the basic material, suffered huge losses estimated at ₹ 40,000. It was then stated : We are, therefore, however prepared to co-operate with the Government and are willing to make good the government's bare cost. Please let us know the detail and the actual amount to be deposited so that we may do so at an ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maining to be delivered by the company was not found. At the trial, the appellants sought to explain the disappearance of the cloth from the factory premises where it was stored, on the plea that it was old and was eaten up by white-ants and moths, and had been thrown away as rubbish. This plea of the appellants was not accepted by the High Court and we think rightly. No information was given at any time to the Textile Commissioner after December 4, 1950, that the cloth had been eaten up by white-ants and moths, and was therefore thrown away or otherwise destroyed. Nor was any evidence led in support of the plea by the appellants. 8. In this court, counsel for the first appellant contended that failure to return the cloth may give rise to a civil liability to make good the loss occasioned thereby, but in the circumstances of the case, the first appellant cannot be found guilty of the offence of criminal breach of trust. Counsel submitted that the first appellant had left Bombay in 1950 and had settled down in Ahmedabad and was attending to a factory in that town, that thereafter the first appellant was involved in insolvency proceedings and was unable to attend to the affairs of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company in carrying out the contract was admitted. By the letter dated December 4, 1950, liability to deliver the cloth was admitted and by the letter dated November 27, 1952, liability to pay compensation for the loss occasioned to the Government was affirmed. The appellants who were liable to account for the cloth over which they had dominion have failed to do so, and they have rendered a false explanation for their failure to account. The High Court was of the opinion that this false defence viewed in the light of failure to produce the books of account, the stock register and the complete absence of reference in the correspondence with the Textile Commissioner about the cause of disappearance established misappropriation with criminal intent. 9. Counsel for the first appellant contended that probably the goods passed into the possession of the mortgagees of the assets of the company, but on this part of the submission, no evidence was led in the trial court. Counsel for the first appellant, relying upon the observations in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The State of Bombay 1955CriLJ857 , also contended that, in any event, a charge under s. 409 read with s. 34 of the India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : In such a case, if accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Appellants 1 2) alone were concerned with the receipt of the goods, if they were dealing with the goods all the time, if they were receiving communications from the Textile Commissioner's office and sending replies to them, and if the part played by each of them is apparent from the manner in which they are shown to have dealt with this contract, then it is a case of two persons entrusted with the goods and a breach of trust obviously being committed by both of them . 11. It was submitted that the High Court erred in finding the appellants guilty of offences under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code when the charge framed against them was one under s. 409 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge framed against the accused person, referring to s. 34 is but a convenient form of giving notice to him that the principle of joint liability is sought to be invoked. Section 34 does not create an offence; it merely enunciates a principle of joint liability for criminal acts done in furtherance of the common intention of the offenders. Conviction of an accused person recorded, relying upon the principle of joint liability, is theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
