Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 113 and 114 of 1961:
Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala and others and V. A. Thomson, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and another, Respondents.
and
Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 1961:
Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 113,114 and 190 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. J.C. Bhatt, Advocate and M/s. B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for Appellants (In Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1961) and Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (In Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 1961); Mr. K.R. Chaudburi, Advocate, for Appellant (In Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1961) and Respondent No. 5 (In Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 1961); M/s. H.R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates for Respondents (In Cr. Appeals Nos. 113 and 114 of 1961) and Appellant (In Cr. Appeal No. 190 of 1961).
CRIMINAL LAW - CHEATING - CONSPIRACY - SINGLE CHARGE FOR OFFENCE OF CHEATING IN PURSUANCE OF CONSPIRACY - S. 233 CR. P. C. - INTERPRETATION - OFFENCE OF CHEATING - OBTAINING MONEY BY SUBMITTING EACH SEPARATE BILL - WHETHER CONSTITUTES ONE OFFENCE OR SEVERAL OFFENCES - S. 71 I. P. C. - APPLICABILITY - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - WHETHER MUST SPECIFY THAT PUBLIC SERVANT ABUSED POSITION FOR PERSONAL GAIN - COMPETENCY OF COURT TO TRY ACCUSED FOR ALL OFFENCES COMMITTED IN PURSUANCE OF CONSPIRACY - IRRESPECTIVE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were charged with conspiracy to cheat the Government by supplying inferior quality wood in fulfillment of a contract for the supply of specified wood. The prosecution alleged that the appellants obtained false inspection notes certifying the quality of the wood and on the basis of these false inspection notes, the firm received payment from the Government. The appellants challenged the legality of the charges framed against them, contending that the charge for cheating should have been framed against each accused who had submitted the bill and obtained money.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the obtaining of money by submitting each separate bill amounted to one distinct offence for which a separate charge should have been framed in view of S. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the Court also held that the charge as framed for the offence under S. 420 did not contravene S. 233 of the Code, as the conspiracy entered into by the appellants was not for obtaining diverse amounts by cheating but to obtain the entire contract money by cheating. The Court further held that the Special Judge, Poona, was competent to try the appellants with respect to the offence of cheating and abetment thereof in connection with the supply of wood to places outside Kerala, and for the obtaining of the price of that wood.
Issues: 1. Whether the obtaining of money by submitting each separate bill amounted to one distinct offence or several offences. 2. Whether the charge as framed for the offence under S. 420 contravened S. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Whether the Special Judge, Poona, was competent to try the appellants with respect to the offence of cheating and abetment thereof in connection with the supply of wood to places outside Kerala, and for the obtaining of the price of that wood.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the obtaining of money by submitting each separate bill amounted to one distinct offence for which a separate charge should have been framed in view of S. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the Court also held that the charge as framed for the offence under S. 420 did not contravene S. 233 of the Code, as the conspiracy entered into by the appellants was not for obtaining diverse amounts by cheating but to obtain the entire contract money by cheating. 2. The Court held that the Special Judge, Poona, was competent to try the appellants with respect to the offence of cheating and abetment thereof in connection with the supply of wood to places outside Kerala, and for the obtaining of the price of that wood.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed Criminal Appeals Nos. 113 and 114 and allowed appeal No. 190 of 1961.
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.: These three appeals, by special leave, arise out of a criminal case pending in the Court of the Special Judge, Poona, against the appelants in Criminal Appeals Nos. 113 and 114.
2. Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala and Champalal Jhunjhunwala, appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1961, are partners in a Firm named Shreeram Ramniranjan. The other two appellants, I.R. Oza and Gajraj Tiwari are the employees of the Firm. V. A. Thomson, appellant in Criminal Appeal 114 of 1961, was Assistant Works Manager (Timber Inspection), Central Railways, Matunga, Bombay, at the relevant time.
3. The aforesaid firm entered into a contract with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi in 1955 for the supply of 1306.5 tons of bottom boards for railway wagons of certain specified varieties of hard wood, to the Central Railway Administration. The total cost for the entire supply was Rs. 3,99,556-8-0. The wood was to be supplied at three places in different quantities. 630 tons were to be consigned to the District Controller of Stores, C.W.E., Matunga, Bombay, 26-1/2 tons were to be supplied to the Assistant Controller of Stores, Lallaguda and 650 tons were too be supplied to the Assistant Controller of Stores, Jhansi. Prior to the supply, the wood was to be inspected by the Chief Engineer (Sleeper Passing Branch), Southern Railway, Madras, or an officer acting for him, and the places of inspection were Kallayi, Mangalore and Vallapatnam. The first and the last of the places were in the Kerala State. The payments were to be made by the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, New Delhi. The procedure to be followed in obtaining the payment was as follows.
4. Immediately after despatch, the Contractor could submit his bill and claim 90% of the price. Along with the bill he had to attach the first copy of the inspection note. The balance, viz, 10% of the price, was paid later when two further copies of the inspection note and certain other documents had to be submitted.
5. Subsequent to the acceptance of the tender, the District Controller of Stores, Central Railways, C. W. E. Depot. Matunga, was also added as the Inspection Authority and Inspection Officer, for the wood to be supplied to D. C. O. S. Matunga. Still later, the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Central Railways, Bombay, was made the Inspection Authority and the Assistant Works Manager, Timber Inspection C.W.E. Central Railways, Matunga, Bombay, was named as the Inspecting Officer. The places of inspection were also changed to Bombay, Calicut and Baliapatam. The period of contract was also extended and the total cost of wood to be supplied was Rs. 4,08,741/-.
6. The prosecution allegation is that the wood actually supplied was of inferior quality, that Thomson and other officers issued false inspection notes certifying the quality of the wood to be per specification and on the basis of these false inspection notes the aforesaid Firm received payment of Rs. 3,77,771/- from the Pay and Accounts Officer in the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, Government of India.
7. The case against the accused appellants was first sent up to the Court of the Special Judge in Kerala. He framed six charges against the accused. Charge No. 1 was framed against all the accused and was for an offence under S. 420 I.P.C. Charges Nos. 3 and 4 were against the two employee-appellants, for an offence under S. 120B I.P.C. Charge No.2 was against the two Partners of the Firm for an offence under S. 420 read with S. 109 I.P.C. Charge No. 5 for a similar offence was against Thomson. Charge No. 6 was against Thomson for an offence under S. 5(1) (d)read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The second charge for the offence under S. 420 I.P.C. was with respect to the Firm obtaining Rs. 1,41, 309/- for the supply of 521 tons of timber. Charge No. 6 stated that Thomson abused his position as a public servant and obtained for the partner-appe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
