SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 71

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Sushil Kumar Gupta Appellant
Versus
Joy Shankar Bhattacharjee, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1967, D/23-2-1970.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. J. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; M/s. H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
J.RAMAMURTHY, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, VINIT KUMAR

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 134 (1) (c) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 408, 477-A and 109 - Criminal breach of trust – Falsification of account - Charged - Secretary of Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., in between period at Agartala p. s. Kotwali committed offence of criminal breach of trust in respect and that you aforesaid persons at same place and time abetted said in commission of same offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of said amount which was committed in consequence of abetment and that have thereby committed an offence punishable - Secondly - Secretary of Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., in between period and at Agartala p. s. committed offence of falsification of accounts and that you aforesaid person at same place and time abetted said in the commission of same offence of falsification of account which was committed in consequence of abetment and that have thereby committed – Held, Court attention was not drawn to any provision of law against legality of joint trial - In any event no failure of justice in consequence of joinder of charges was pointed out with result that question of misjoinder of charges must be held to be of little consequence at stage of appeal - Word "certify is a strong word - It postulates exercise of judicial discretion by High Court and certificate should ordinarily show on face of it that discretion was invoked and properly exercised This Court should be in a position to know that High Court has not acted mechanically but has applied its mind - A certificate under this clause is impermissible on questions of fact and when a case does not disclose a substantial question of law or principle then certificate granted by High Court is liable to be revoked by thin Court, though such prima facie non-disclosure would not by itself automatically invalidate certificate - Appeal dismissed

Judgment

DUA, J.: - Pursuant to a complaint by Shri. Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya, the appellant Sushil Kumar Gupta was tried in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tripura on the following charges:

"(1) That you in between the month of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at Agartala P. S. Kotwali being a servant viz., Secretary in the employment of the Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., and in such capacity entrusted with certain property to wit, a total sum of Rs. 18,200 being the fund of the Society, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.

Secondly that you in between the period of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at the same place being a Secretary in the employment of the Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., wilfully and with intent to defraud, falsified certain books and other relevant papers to wit cash book etc., which belonged to the said society, your employer and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court".

2. As the appellant was tried jointly along with five others who have been acquitted and as it was argued on behalf of the appellant that in view of the acquittal of his co-accused the appellant also should have been acquitted, the charges against them may also be reproduced:

"That Sushil Kumar Gupta, Secretary of the Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., in between the period of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at Agartala p. s. Kotwali committed the offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 18,200/- and that you the aforesaid persons at the same place and time abetted the said Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta in the commission of the same offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount which was committed in the consequence of your abetment and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section.109, I. P. C. read with Section 408, I. P. C. and within my cognizance.

Secondly - that Shri Kumar Gupta, Secretary of the Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., in between the period of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at Agartala p. s. Kotwali committed the offence of falsification of accounts and that you the aforesaid person at the same place and time abetted the said Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta in the commission of the same offence of falsification of account which was committed in consequence of your abetment and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 109, Indian Penal Code read with Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance-"

The trial Court acquitted all the six accused persons. An appeal against the acquittal of all of them was preferred under S. 417 (3), Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Tripura. That Court allowed the appeal against S. K. Gupta only and dismissed it as against the others. S. K. Gupta was held guilty of the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 408, Indian Penal Code and also of the offence of falsification of accounts under Section 477-A, Indian Penal Code regarding the sum of Rs. 18,200/-. He was sentenced under each count to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, the sentences to be concurrent.

3. The convict S. K. Gupta has appealed to this Court on certificate granted under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution, The order granting the certificate does not disclose on its face what exactly the difficulty of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner is and precisely what question of outstanding difficulty this Court is desired to settle. On behalf of the appellant his learned advocate Shri Ramamurthy, however, addressed elaborate arguments questioning the order of the learned Judicial Commissioner allowing the appeal against the appellant S. K. Gupta s acquittal. His Challenge was based on thr




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top