Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
27th September, 1962.
S.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Tulsi Ram and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. (In both the Appeals), Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 62 and 63 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
M/s. A. N. Mulla and B. B. Tawakley, Senior Advocates (M/s. J. P. Goyal, A. Banerjee and K. P. Gupta, Advocates with them), for Appellants; M/s. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, Advocates, for Respondent (in both the Appeals).
CRIMINAL LAW - Conspiracy - Forgery - Cheating - Ingredients - Dishonest inducement - Wrongful loss - Wrongful gain - Offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, other than Chandrika Singh, were convicted by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, of offences under Section 471, Indian Penal Code read with Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code and sentenced variously. Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal and Babu Lal were each convicted of offences under Section 417 read with Section 420 and Moti Lal of offences under Section 417, Indian Penal Code and Lachhmi Narain of offences under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. Separate sentences were awarded to each of them in respect of these offences. All the six appellants were, in addition, convicted under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code and sentenced separately in respect of that offence. In appeal the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences passed on Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal, Babu Lal and Moti Lal of offences under Section 471 read with Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code and also acquitted Moti Lal of the offence under Section 417, Indian Penal Code. It, however, upheld the conviction of all the appellants under Section 120 B, Indian Penal Code as well as the conviction of Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal and Babu Lal of offences under Section 417 read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code. As regards Lachhmi Narain it maintained the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in all respects and dismissed the appeal in toto.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellants had committed the offences of cheating, forgery and conspiracy. The Court found that the appellants had obtained credit to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs between May, 1949 and December, 1949 by resorting to a device of booking small consignments of seeds from various stations in Rae Bareli and Partapgarh districts to various stations in West Bengal, including the city of Calcutta, and then tampering with the railway receipts and using them to obtain loans from banks and firms. The Court also found that the appellants had forged railway receipts and used them to obtain credit from banks and firms. The Court further found that the appellants had conspired to commit these offences.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants had committed the offences of cheating, forgery and conspiracy? 2. Whether the appellants had obtained credit to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs between May, 1949 and December, 1949 by resorting to a device of booking small consignments of seeds from various stations in Rae Bareli and Partapgarh districts to various stations in West Bengal, including the city of Calcutta, and then tampering with the railway receipts and using them to obtain loans from banks and firms? 3. Whether the appellants had forged railway receipts and used them to obtain credit from banks and firms? 4. Whether the appellants had conspired to commit these offences?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellants had committed the offences of cheating, forgery and conspiracy. 2. The Court found that the appellants had obtained credit to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs between May, 1949 and December, 1949 by resorting to a device of booking small consignments of seeds from various stations in Rae Bareli and Partapgarh districts to various stations in West Bengal, including the city of Calcutta, and then tampering with the railway receipts and using them to obtain loans from banks and firms. 3. The Court also found that the appellants had forged railway receipts and used them to obtain credit from banks and firms. 4. The Court further found that the appellants had conspired to commit these offences.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the conviction of all the appellants under Section 120 B, Indian Penal Code as well as the conviction of Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal and Babu Lal of offences under Section 417 read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code. As regards Lachhmi Narain it maintained the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in all respects and dismissed the appeal in toto. The Court, however, set aside the conviction of Chandrika Singh under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code as well as the sentences passed on him.
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR, J. : These are appeals by a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad. They arise out of the same trial. The appellants in both the appeals except Chandrika Singh were convicted by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, of offences under Section 471, Indian Penal Code read with Sections 467 and 468, l P. C. and sentenced variously. Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal and Babu Lal were each convicted of offences under Section 417 read with Section 420 and Moti Lal of offences under Section 417, Indian Penal Code and Lachhmi Narain of offences under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. Separate sentences were awarded to each of them in respect of these offences. All the six appellants were, in addition, convicted under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code and sentenced separately in respect of that offence. In appeal the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences passed on Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal, Babu Lal and Moti Lal of offences under Section 471 read with Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code and also acquitted Moti Lal of the offence under Section 417, Indian Penal Code. It, however, upheld the conviction of all the appellants under Section 120 B, Indian Penal Code as well as the conviction of Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal and Babu Lal of offences under Section 417 read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code. As regards Lachhmi Narain it maintained the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in all respects and dismissed the appeal in toto. The relevant facts are as follows :-
2. The appellants, other than Chandrika Singh are members of a Marwari trading family belonging to Rae Bareli and Chandrika Singh was their employee, the relationship amongst Lachhmi Narain and the first four appellants in Cri. A. 62 of 1958 would be clear from the following genealogical table :
3. It is common ground that Lachhmi Narain was the karta of the family and the entire business of the family was done under his directions and supervision. This fact is material in view of the defence taken by the first four appellants in Cri. A. 62 of 1958.
4. It is common ground that the family carried on business in the names and styles of (1) firm Beni Gopal Mohan Lal with head office at Rae Bareli, (2) firm Tulsi Ram Sohal Lal with head office at Lalgunj in the district of Rae Bareli, (3) firm Bhairo Prasad Srinivas with head office at Rae Bareli, (4) firm Gobardhan Das Moti Lal with head office at Madhoganj in the district of Partabgarh and (5) firm Sagarmal Surajmal with head office at Unchahar in the district of Rae Bareli. Though different members of the family were shown as partners in these five firms one thing is not disputed and that is that the business of each and every one of these firms was being conducted by and under the orders and directions of Lachhmi Narain though in point of fact he was shown as partner along with his father Sri Niwas and brother Pahlad only in the firm of Bhairo Prasad Srinivas.
5. It is common ground that in May, 1949 the firm Bhairo Prasad Srinivas was appointed the sole importer of cloth for distribution amongst wholesalers in the Rae Bareli district. Prior to the appointment of this firm as sole importer a syndicate consisting of four firms of Rae Bareli was the sole importer of cloth in that district. It would, however, appear that this syndicate failed to take delivery of large consignments of cloth with the result that the Deputy Commissioner discovered that cloth bales valued at about Rs. 2,25,000/- were lying at the railway station and demurrage on the consignment was mounting every day. It is not disputed either that it was at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner that the firm Bhairo Prasad Srinivas agreed to act as sole importers, take delivery of the cloth and distribute it amongst wholesalers. They were also required to take delivery subsequently of cloth worth over Rs. 23 lakhs. This firm and one other allied firm were also importers and distributors of foodgrains
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
