Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1964 Supreme(SC) 54

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND. J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
1. Shiv Prasad Chuni Lal Jain (In Crl. A. No. 150 of 61) 2. Pyarelal Ishwardas Kapoor (In Crl. A. No. 185 of 61), Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra (In both the Appeals), Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 150 and 185 of 1961.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. K. Garg and M. K. Ramamurthi, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., Advocates, with him), (In No. 150 of 1961) and Mr. B. M. Mistry, Advocate and M/s. Ravinder Narain and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., Advocates, (In No. 185 of 1961), for Appellants; M/s. B. K. Khanna, B. R. G. K. Achar and R.H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Respondent (In both Appeals).

Advocates:
B.K.Khanna, B.M.MISTRY, B.R.G.K.Achar, J.B.DADACHAN, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.H.Dhebar, R.K.GARG, Ravindra Narayan, S.MOHAN KUMARA MANGALAM

Abetment requires knowledge of the offence being committed and an act or omission that aids or encourages the commission of the offence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Abetment - Ingredients - Accused No. 2 and 3 charged with abetment of offences committed by accused No. 1 - Whether abetment established - Held, accused No. 3 abetted the offences but accused No. 2 did not.
Fact of the Case:

A large quantity of iron angles were consigned from Gobind Garh to Raypuram under Railway Receipt No. 597481. They were despatched in an open wagon bearing E. R. No. 69667. The labels of the wagon were changed at Itarsi railway station and it was diverted to Wadi Bunder under a label showing that the iron angles had been despatched from Baran to Wadi Bunder under Railway Receipt No. 43352 dated February 6, 1959. This wagon reached Wadi Bunder on February 16, 1959. On February 17 it was unloaded by Baburao Gawade, P.W. 1 and Shridhar, P. W. 14. On February 18, accused No. 1 obtained the delivery sheet of the bill and signed it in the name of Shri Datta. He also obtained delivery of the iron angles from the railway and signed the Railway Delivery Book in the name of Shri Datta. The railway authorities delivered these on the presentation of the forged receipt No. 43352 and on payment of the charges amounting to Rs. 1,500/-. These iron angles were then transported to the godown of the National Transport Company at Sewri and stored there. The entries in the book showed their receipt in the account of accused No. 8 and also contained a further, entry indicating the goods to be received in the account of accused No. 2. The latter entry was made on the receipt of a chit, Exhibit z8, from accused No. 1 saying that the goods be entered in the name of accused No. 2. On February 24, 1959 the accused No. 2 signed an application, Exhibit K, addressed to the head office of the National Transport Company for delivering the goods. Accused No.1 obtained the goods from the godown of that company on February 16 and March 3, 1959. A complaint by the original consignee about the non-receipt of the iron angles sent from Gobind Garh led to an enquiry and eventual prosecution of the three accused.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that accused No. 3 abetted the offences committed by accused No. 1, but accused No. 2 did not.
Issues: Whether accused No. 2 and 3 abetted the offences committed by accused No. 1.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that accused No. 3 abetted the offences committed by accused No. 1 because he wrote a document that falsely showed that accused No. 2 had dealt with the forged railway receipt, and that he passed on the forged receipt to accused No. 1 for the purpose of getting delivery of the iron angles from the railway authorities. The court held that accused No. 2 did not abet the offences because he did not know that the receipt he was dealing with was forged, and because he signed the letter for the issue of the delivery order at the insistence of accused No. 3.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of accused No. 2 and acquitted him of the offences he was convicted of. The court dismissed the appeal of accused No. 3, but altered his conviction for the various offences read with S. 34 I. P.C. to those offences read with S. 109 I.P.C., and maintained the sentences.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : Shiv Prasad Chunilal Jain, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1961 was No. 3, and Pyarelal Ishwardas Kapoor, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.185 of 1961 was accused No. 2, at the Sessions Trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. Along with them was a third accused, Rameshwarnath Brijmohan Shukla who was accused No. 1 at the trial.

2. As the two appeals arise from a common judgment, we would dispose of them by one judgment. The appellants would be referred to as accused No. 3 and accused No. 2 respectively.

3. The facts leading to the conviction of the appellants are that a large quantity of iron angles was consigned early in February 1959 from Gobind Garh to Raypuram under Railway Receipt No. 597481. They were despatched in an open wagon bearing E. R. No. 69667. The labels of the wagon were changed at Itarsi railway station and it was diverted to Wadi Bunder under a label showing that the iron angles had been despatched from Baran to Wadi Bunder under Railway Receipt No. 43352 dated February 6, 1959. This wagon reached Wadi Bunder on February 16, 1959. On February 17 it was unloaded by Baburao Gawade, P.W. 1 and Shridhar, P. W. 14. On February 18, accused No. 1 obtained the delivery sheet of the bill and signed it in the name of Shri Datta. He also obtained delivery of the iron angles from the railway and signed the Railway Delivery Book in the name of Shri Datta. The railway authorities delivered these on the presentation of the forged receipt No. 43352 and on payment of the charges amounting to Rs. 1,500/-.

4. These iron angles were then transported to the godown of the National Transport Company at Sewri and stored there. The entries in the book showed their receipt in the account of accused No. 8 and also contained a further, entry indicating the goods to be received in the account of accused No. 2. The latter entry was made on the receipt of a chit, Exhibit z8, from accused No. 1 saying that the goods be entered in the name of accused No. 2. On February 24, 1959 the accused No. 2 signed an application, Exhibit K, addressed to the head office of the National Transport Company for delivering the goods. Accused No.1 obtained the goods from the godown of that company on February 16 and March 3, 1959.

5. A complaint by the original consignee about the non-receipt of the iron angles sent from Gobind Garh led to an enquiry and eventual prosecution of the three accused.

6. Six charges were framed. The first charge was against all the accused for an offence punishable under Ss. 471 and 467 read with S. 34 I.P.C. and stated that in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the railway administration accused No. 1 had fraudulently or dishonestly used the forged Railway Receipt No. 48352.

7. the second charge was framed in the alternative. Firstly it charged all the accused for an offence under S. 467 read with S. 34 I.P.C. on account of accused No. 1 having forged the bill portion. In the alternative, accused No. 1 was charged with the offence under S. 467 I. P. C. and the other accused Nos. 2 and 3 were charged under S. 467 read with S. 109 I.P. C. for having abetted accused No. 1 in the commission of that offence.

8. Charges Nos. 3 to 6 were similarly framed in the alternative, i. e., in the first instance all the three accused were charged of certain offences read with S. 34 I. P.C. while in the alternative accused No. 1 was charged of the specific offence and the other two accused were charged with that offence read with S. 109 I. P. C.

9. The accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, with the aid of a jury. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against all the accused for the various offences read with S. 34 I. P. C. The verdict of the jury was not recorded with respect to the five alternative charges against accused No. 1 regarding substantive offences and against accused Nos. 2 and 3 with respect to the various offences read with S. 109 I.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document