Back
THE KING v. SUPPAIYA.
NLR5V119
THE KING v. SUPPAIYA.
D.C. , Kandy, 1.279.
Criminal breach of trust-Penal Code, s. 391-Payment of money to servant fur the use of the master-Denial of receipt by servant-Presumption of misappropriation.
A servant who receives money on behalf of his master and enters the amount received in his master's book, but afterwards denies the receipt of the money, is liable under section 391 of the Penal Code.
His false denial of the money received is prima facie evidence of dishonest misappropriation. '
THE accused in this case. being a servant of the complainant Karpaya Kankani, was charged under section 391 of the Penal Code with having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of three sums of money, viz.. Rs, 80, Rs. 125, and Rs. 220, entrusted to him on the 14th, 16th, and 29th July , 1900. respectively.
The case was heard with the aid of assessors.
It. appeared that when the complainant left the Island in April, 1900, he appointed the accused and one Vellasami his attorneys to act jointly in all money transactions. In September, 1900, complainant returned to the Island, in consequence of a telegram he received from his brother, who had been sent by him to see how his business was getting on. Complainant met the accused on his return and they went through the account
books in the presence of some Chetties. A large deficiency was discovered, whereupon the accused wrote and signed an ola admitting the deficiency. The three sums in question formed part of the deficiency.
The District Judge acquitted the accused in regard to the two sums of Rs.80 and Rs. 125, but as regards the sum of Rs. 220 he found as follows: -
That amount was paid to him direct by Palaniappa Chetty. who has been credited that in the ledger, the entry being in the accused's handwriting. Accused denies the receipt of that amount. For the prosecution there is the evidence of Palaniappa that he paid the accused, and he is corroborated by the ledger. Accused admits that the ledger entry is in his handwriting, but he says he wrote it at the request of the complainant after his return from India, and that complainant threatened to beat him if he did not write it."
The assessors and the District judge were agreed that the accused was guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 220. Being sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, he appealed.
Senatlairaja, for appellant.-Section 391 (I relates to transactions between master and servant, but it has not been proved that the sum of Rs. 220 in question belonged to the complainant. The evidence is that a third party. Palaniappa, paid the money to the accused, and that he secured himself by taking a promissory note, on a subsequent day from the accused for the amounts alleged to be paid to him. There was no dishonest misappropriation (Queen r. Costa, 2 C. L, R. 205). The circumstances of the present case are similar to those of R. v. Hodgson (3 Car and P. 422), where it was held that a clerk, whose duty it was to receive moneys daily at Newcastle, to enter the moneys received in a book, and to remit the amount weekly to Liverpool, and who, having correctly entered the receipts in the book, failed to remit the moneys received, was not guilty of embezzlement, Vaughan, B. observing, "it is only a default of payment; the mere fact of not paying is not a felony, but matter of account only." [Counsel argued on the merits also.
Ramanathan, S.-G., for respondent. -The money which the accused received from Palaniappa is proved to have been paid for and on account of the complainant. The case of R. v. Hodgson cited for appellant was decided in 1.828, but it has been overruled by It. v. Lister. 26 L. J. M. C. 26 (1856). Pollock. C. B.. entirely-dissented from the dictum of Vaughan. B., and held that entering
he amount received in the ledger did not exempt the prisoner from liability to the charge of having embezzled the money. In the present case. the accu
