Judgement

BOSE J. : These two appeals arise out of the same trial. The two appellants, Shreekantiah (accused 1 in the trial Court and the appellant in Appeal No. 89 of 1954) and Parasuram (accused 2 and the appellant in Appeal No. 90 of 1954) were tried with a third accused Dawson on a number of different charges centring round S. 409, Indian Penal Code: criminal breach of trust by a public servant. The trial was by jury and all three were found guilty of an offence under S. 409 read with S. 34. They were convicted and sentenced as under:

Accused No. 1. Shreekantiah to one year and a fine of Rs. 500 with four months in default;

Accused No. 2. Parasuram to two years and a fine of Rs. 500 with six months in default; and

Accused No. 3. Dawson to six months and a fine of Rs. 200 with two months in default.

2. The appeal of accused 2 to the High Court was dismissed summarily on 25-8-1953 with the one word "dismissed". Accused 1 and 3 appealed separately. Their appeal was heard by another Bench and was admitted, and a reasoned judgment followed on 23-11-l953. This, to say the least, was, in the circumstances of this case, anomalous. The appeals arise out of the same trial and are from one judgment and relate to the same charge to the jury, and what is more they raise substantially the same points. This Court was constrained to express its disapproval of the summary rejections of appeals which raise issues of substance and importance. We draw attention to the remarks in - Mushtak Hussein v. State of Bombay , AIR 1953 SC 282 at P. 286 (A). Those observations apply with even greater force in the present case.

3. The three accused are Government servants. At all material times, the first was the Officer Commanding the Military Engineering Stores Depot at Dehu Road near Poona. He was in over-all-charge. The second was under him as the officer in charge of the Receipts and Issue control section. The third worked directly under the second as the Assistant Stores Officer.

4. The depot is maintained by the Central Government and covers an area of some 150 acres. Government stores worth several lacs of rupees are kept there. On 11-9-1948 iron stores worth about Rs. 4,000 were illegally passed out of the depot and were handed over to one lbrahim Fida Hussain, an agent of the approver Mohsinbhai (P. W. 1).

The case for the prosecution is that the three accused, who were in charge of these stores and to whom they had been entrusted in various capacities, entered into a conspiracy to defraud Government of these properties and that in pursuance of this conspiracy they arranged to sell them to the approver (P. W. 1) for a sum of Rs. 4,000. The money is said to have been paid and then the stores were passed out of the depot. The money is said to have been pocketed by the three accused and not credited to Government.

5. On these facts a number of charges were framed. The first set was drawn up on 9-7-1953. All three accused were jointly charged with an offence punishable under S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and all three were further jointly charged with having committed criminal breach of trust in furtherance of the common intention of all under S. 409, I. P. C. read with S. 34.

6. Then followed a number of alternative charges in which each was separately charged with having committed criminal breach of trust personally under S. 409.

7. As a further alternative, all three were jointly charged under S. 409, I. P. C. read with S. 109 for having abetted each other in the commission of a criminal breach of trust under S. 409.

8. Objection was at once taken to these charges and the one which concerns us now was couched in the following terms:

" It is further submitted that the trial under S. 5(2), Corruption Act, 1947 with I. P. C., S. 409 is likely to embarrass the accused in their defence as it would be difficult to efface the evidence (if any) of the accused persons given on oath from the minds of the Jurors when considering the charge under S. 409,