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

1955 Supreme(Cal) 179

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
MAJOR J. PHILLIPS - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Revn. Case 608  Of  1955
Decided On : AUGUST 31, 1955

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.DUTTA, Amaresh Chandra Roy, J.K.MUKHERJI, J.P.MITTER, KANAK KANTI GHOSH

The sanction for prosecution of a public servant is not limited to the strict form of the offences mentioned in the body of the sanction. The prosecution is not limited to proving facts and circumstances that support the charges of offences expressly mentioned in the sanction. The sanction is intended to be accorded to the facts constituting the offence, not to the section defining or punishing the offence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - VALIDITY - SCOPE AND EXTENT - WHETHER SANCTION GRANTED FOR OFFENCES OF CHEATING AND CONSPIRACY TO CHEAT INCLUDES OFFENCES OF CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS FROM ONE SPECIAL COURT TO ANOTHER - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT - WEST BENGAL CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (SPECIAL COURTS) ACT, 1949 (WEST BENGAL ACT 21 OF 1949), SEC. 4 - WEST BENGAL CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (SPECIAL COURTS) ACT (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1952 (WEST BENGAL ACT 12 OF 1952), SECS. 2, 4.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a public servant, was charged with criminal breach of trust and conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust. The prosecution was based on a complaint filed before a Special Tribunal constituted under Ordinance 29 of 1943. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Special Tribunal, but the convictions and sentences were set aside on appeal. The case was then distributed to the 2nd Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (West Bengal Act 21 of 1949). The petitioner filed a petition to quash the proceedings before the 2nd Special Court on the ground that there was no valid sanction for his prosecution. The petition was dismissed by Chunder J. The petitioner then filed a Rule to show cause why the proceedings before the 2nd Special Court should not be quashed.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the sanctions granted for offences of cheating and conspiracy to cheat included offences of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust. The Court also held that the State Government had the power to transfer the proceedings from the 2nd Special Court to the 1st Special Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the sanctions granted for offences of cheating and conspiracy to cheat included offences of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust? 2. Whether the State Government had the power to transfer the proceedings from the 2nd Special Court to the 1st Special Court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the sanctions granted for offences of cheating and conspiracy to cheat included offences of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust because: * The sanctions were not limited to the strict form of the offences mentioned in the body of the sanction. * The prosecution was not limited to proving facts and circumstances that supported the charges of offences expressly mentioned in the sanction. * The sanction was intended to be accorded to the facts constituting the offence, not to the section defining or punishing the offence. * The facts of the case, as set out in the petition of complaint and the evidence of the witness, bore a real relation to the facts mentioned in the sanction. 2. The Court held that the State Government had the power to transfer the proceedings from the 2nd Special Court to the 1st Special Court because: * The power of transfer was given to the State Government under the unamended provisions of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949. * The Amending Act 12 of 1952 did not take away the power of transfer from the State Government. * The Amending Act only changed the procedure for distributing cases to Special Courts.

Final Decision: The Rule was discharged.

DEBABRATA MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Rule to show cause why certain proceedings pending against the petitioner Major J. Phillips before the 1st Special Court, Alipore constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 as amended by Act 12 of 1952, should not be quashed or why such other or further orders should not be made as to this Court may seen fit and proper.

( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner Phillips along with four other persons, named, Captain A. J. Rodrigues, Jagat Bhusan Biswas, Edward Ezra and Nandalal Dey have been summoned to take their trial before the 1st Special Court, Alipore under Section 120b/409, Penal Code. There are besides allegations against Phillips under Section 409, and under Section 409/109, Penal Code against the rest. The petitioner and his co-accused have appeared before the Special Court in obedience to the processes issued and it was after the examination in part of one witness for the prosecution that Phillips alone moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.

( 3 ) THE case has a chequered history which requires to be recounted in brief outline even for the limited purpose of this Rule.

( 4 ) MAJOR J. Phillips was the Controller of Government Telegraph Stores at Alipore during the relevant period (April 1942 to December 1944) to which the allegations appear to relate. He was a public servant employed by the Government of, India. Captain A. J. Rodrigues and Biswas were also Government servants working under Phillips. Edward Ezra and Nandalal De were contractors who supplied various materials to the Telegraph Stores and figured in purchases made of such stores by or through Phillips.

( 5 ) CERTAIN irregularities having been detected in the affairs of the Telegraph Stores at Alipore in the year 1943 by the Accounts Officer, a departmental enquiry followed which according to the prosecution revealed a fraud of considerable magnitude in connection with what are described as illegal purchases of stores resulting in loss to Government to the tune of lacs. The matter was made over for investigation to the Special Police Establishment. The investigation extended over a pretty long time and revealed that the fraudulent transactions related to purchase of Mc. Intyre sleeves, copper strips, bolts, nuts, G. I. Pipes etc. Contracts for supply of huge quantities of these stores were said to have been given to particular groups of favoured contractors who formed a sort of ring and in order that the transactions might, be imparted the appearance of regularity, the deals were so manipulated as to keep the purchases within the financial competence of the petitioner Phillips in matters of sanctioning local purchases. The allegation seems to be that the employees of the Alipore Telegraph Stores received illegal gratifications from the contractors who were thus given orders to supply the articles mentioned. In the course of the investigation it appeared that two other employees of the Telegraph Stores were concerned in the commission of the offences. They were Dasarathi Mukherjee and Dhruba Chandra Banerji; the former died after the commencement of the trial and the latter turned an approver and gave evidence in the case.

( 6 ) THE investigation having revealed that a fraud of considerable magnitude had been perpetrated on the Government as the result of a conspiracy as between the employees of the Telegraph. Stores, and the contractors in pursuance of which other offences were also committed, a complaint was filed by one K. L. Mukherjee, Superintendent of Police in the Court of the 1st Special Tribunal at Alipore which was constituted under Ordinance 29 of 1943.

( 7 ) THE employees of the Telegraph Stores being public servants concerned in the commission of the offences, sanctions were obtained for their prosecution both under Section 197, Criminal P. C. and under Section 270, Government of India Act, 1935; the former dated 26-7-1946 was accorded by the Governor-Ge


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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