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

1972 Supreme(SC) 270

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
The State of Kerala, Appellant
Versus
A. Pareed Pillai & another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 71/1969, D/- 28-4-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. R. Somanatha Iyer Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. G. Pudissery Advocate with him, for Appellant; A. S. R. Chari Sr. Advocate (M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co. and M/s. K. R. Nagaraja and M. Qamaruddin Advocates with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.R.SOMNATH IYER, A.S.R.CHARI, K.L.Mehta, K.R.NAGARAJA, M.Qamaruddin, S.K.MEHTA

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 120B,109,420,107,197 r/w 109 - Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 5(2) – Corruption - One with accused at Always agreed to do an illegal act or acts, to wit accused to present forwarding notes in respect of coconut oil tins to be booked without actually tendering tins with coconut oil, but only some empty tins, accused to issue railway receipts in respect of such forwarding notes and accused to present railway receipts in support of hundies drawn on others in Federal Bank Ltd. and obtain value of hundies and accused to get empty tins transported and stored at Railway Station – Held, court are of view that material on record does not warrant interference with finding of High Court on charge of cheating in so far as it related to credit given by bank of the amount of eleven demand drafts in question in account of firm - It may also be observed that bank has got collateral security in respect of overdraft and discounting facilities to firm of accused-respondents and court have not been referred to any material to show that said security would not be sufficient to reimburse bank for amount due to it - Material on record further indicates that even in the past there has been occasion when firm of one honoured demand draft and requested that goods might be despatched subsequently - This would appear from telegram sent by the aforesaid firm to firm of accused - It is not in the evidence of (P. W. 29), who is a partner of said one that the said firm would not have paid amounts of two demand drafts if it had known that oil tins had not been despatched - View taken by High Court in acquitting accused-respondents has not been shown to court to be unreasonable - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

KHANNA, J. :- Three brothers Pareed Pillai, Kadar Pillai and Mohammed Pillai, partners of A. Pareed Pillai and Bros., Alwave as well as K. M. Kurien Assistant Goods Clerk in the Southern Railway at Alwave were tried in the Court of Special Judge. Trichur for an offence under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code on the following charge :

"That you (1) Sri A. Pareed Pillai, (2) Sri A. Kader Pillai (3) Sri A. Mohammed Pillai and (4) Sri K. M. Kurien accused 1 to 4 between December 1962 or earlier and June 1963, at Alwaye agreed to do an illegal act or acts, to wit. accused Nos. 1 and 2 to present forwarding notes in respect of coconut oil tins to be booked without actually tendering tins with coconut oil, but only some empty tins, accused No. 4 to issue railway receipts in respect of such forwarding notes and accused No. 1 to present the railway receipts in support of hundies drawn on others in the Federal Bank Ltd. Alwaye and obtain value of the hundies and accused No. 3 to get empty tins transported and stored at the Alwaye Railway Station. The said acts were done in pursuance of the agreement between you. These acts constitute offences punishable under Section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947 and Section 5 (2) of Act 1947 read with Section 109 of the I. P. C. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of the I. P. C. and S. 197 read with S. 109 of the I. P. C. You have therefore committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and with my cognizance"

In addition to the above there were eight charges (charges 2 to 9) against Kurien accused for an offence under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Five charges (charges 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16) were framed against Pareed accused for an offence under Section 109 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Likewise, there were three charges (charges 11, 14 and 17) for an offence under Section 109 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Kader accused. Three charges (charges 18, 19 and 20) were framed under Section 420 Indian Penal Code against Pareed Pillai accused. Charges 18 and 19 were also framed against Kader and Mohammed accused for offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Charge No. 21 was for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code against Kader and Mohammed accused. Charge No. 22 was for an offence under Section 197 Indian Penal Code against Kurien accused, while charge No. 23 was for an offence under Section 197 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code against Pareed and Kader accused. The Special Judge acquitted Mohammed, accused No. 3. Pareed accused No. 1 was convicted under S. 120-B, Indian Penal Code, S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and Section 420 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on the first count, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on the third count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine. Pareed accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. Kader, accused No. 2 was convicted for offences under Section 120B Indian Penal Code. Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code, section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 420 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each of the four counts. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Kurjen accused No. 4, was convicted under S. 120-B Indian Penal Code Section 5 (2) r




















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