The word wilfully in S. 53 of the Indian Post Office Act means intentionally and deliberately , and not accidentally or negligently.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : ( On behalf of Subba Rao J. and himself.)

The appellant, who was a registration clerk in the Haveri Post Office in the Mysore State was tried by the Sessions Judge, Dharwar, on charges under S. 52, S. 53 and S. 55 of the Indian Post Office Act. The prosecution case is that on the 18th October 1955 a registered letter containing half portion of a ten-rupee note and a petition on behalf of one Muppayeagonda asking for the said note to be exchanged for a fresh note was received at the Haveri Post Office at 4.30 p.m. from the Branch Post Office at Kabbur. The appellant who was a registration clerk at Haveri at the time, however, detained the registered envelope instead of despatching it that very day as he should have done. He depatched it the next day. It was the prosecution case that the appellant removed the half portion of the ten rupee currency note from inside the envelope and to cover up his misconduct made alterations in the petition contained in the envelope and in the list of registered articles. All this was discovered, it is said, when the Reserve Bank of India, to which this envelop was addressed made enquiries in the matter on finding that no note had been enclosed with the petition. The appellant admitted that the envelope was received at the Haveri Post Office on October 18, 1955 and also that he did not despatch it on that date. His case was that it was received at about 5.30 p.m. on the 18th and so it was too late for despatch on that date but that he despatched it duly on the 19th.

2. On a consideration of the evidence the Sessions Judge held that the charge under S. 52 of the Indian Post Office Act for the theft of currency note and for secreting the registered article had not been established and acquited him of the charge. He however found it proved that the appellant had fraudulently altered the lists of registered articles and thereby committed an offence under S. 55 of the Indian Post Office Act. He also held that the appellant had wilfully detained the envelope and thus committed an offence under S. 53 of the Indian Post Office Act. He accordingly convicted the appellant of the charges under Ss. 53 and 55 of the Indian Post Office Act and sentenced him to undergo two months simple imprisonment on each charge. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. On appeal, the High Court of Mysore set aside the appellant s conviction under S. 55 of the Indian Post Office Act but maintained his conviction under S. 53, being of opinion that while the wilful detention of the envelope by the appellant had been proved, the alleged alterations by him in the list of registered articles had not been established. Against the High Court s decision the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Ramchandra Narasimha Kulkarni.

4. In support of the appeal it is contended by Dr. Barlingay that as the allegations of theft of the note or of alterations in the list of registered articles by the appellent have not been established, the appellant must be held not to have committed any offence under S. 53 of the Indian Post Office Act. It is argued that assuming that the envelope was detained by the appellant as alleged, he cannot be said to have detained it "wilfully" unless it is shown that he had some purpose in doing it. But, the purpose alleged by the prosecution was that he wanted to commit theft of the currency note, and to cover this up, to make alterations in the list of registered articles, these purposes have not been established. So, argues the learned Counsel, the detention of the envelope should be held to have been made without any purpose but only through inadvertence of mere carelessness. That would not constitute, according to the learned Counsel, a wlful detention.

5. The words "wilful" and "wilfully" are frequently used in many statutes and have come up for judicial consideration in the courts of this country as also elsewhere. The meaning given to these words have differed in dif