The elements of the offence of misappropriation under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are: (1) receipt of property by the accused; (2) a duty to account to the owner; (3) failure to account; and (4) dishonest intention.

Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 5(1)(C) - MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY - ELEMENTS - DISHONEST INTENTION - FAILURE TO ACCOUNT - FALSE EXPLANATION - EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an Assistant Store Keeper in the Central Tractor Organization, was convicted under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for misappropriating a consignment of iron and steel goods received by rail. The prosecution alleged that the appellant took delivery of the goods but they never reached the Central Tractor Organization. The appellant claimed that he had removed the goods to another railway siding to save wharfage and demurrage charges.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the appellant had taken delivery of the goods and removed them from the railway siding, but it did not accept the appellant's explanation that he had removed them to the Saloon Siding. The court also found that the appellant had given a false explanation to his superiors about what had happened to the goods and that he had absented himself from duty without permission.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved that the appellant had misappropriated the goods. 2. Whether the appellant's failure to account for the goods and his false explanation were sufficient evidence of dishonest intention.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved that the appellant had misappropriated the goods. The appellant had taken delivery of the goods and removed them from the railway siding, but they never reached the Central Tractor Organization. The appellant's explanation that he had removed the goods to the Saloon Siding was not accepted by the court. 2. The court held that the appellant's failure to account for the goods and his false explanation were sufficient evidence of dishonest intention. The court noted that the appellant had given a false explanation to his superiors about what had happened to the goods and that he had absented himself from duty without permission. These circumstances, taken together, showed that the appellant had intended to misappropriate the goods.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Judgement

J.L. KAPUR J.: This appeal by special leave is brought against the judgement and order of the High Court of the Punjab confirming the order of conviction of the appellant under S. 5 (1) (c ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court reduced the sentence of the appellant to nine months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The appellant was employed as an Assistant Store Keeper in the Central Tractor Organization at Delhi and amongst other duties his duty was the taking of delivery of consignment of goods received by rail for Central Tractor Organization and in that capacity he is alleged to have misappropriated a major portion of a wagon load of iron and steel weighing about 500 Mds. Received at Delhi Railway Station from the Tata Iron & Steel Co., Tatanagar under Railway Receipt No. 039967 dated August 12, 1950. This consignment of goods was taken delivery of on October 2, 1950, at the Lahori Gate Depot. The consignment had been lying at the Railway depot for a considerable time and the Central Tractor Organization was, before taking the delivery, making efforts to have the wharfage and demurrage charges reduced but it only succeeded in getting a reduction of Rs. 100. The appellant paid Rs. 2332/4 for demurrage by means of credit notes P.N. and P.O. on October 2, and on the following day he paid a further sum of Rs. 57/3 by a credit note P.Q. The prosecution case was that this consignment never reached the Central Tractor Organization and that the appellant had removed these goods and had misappropriated them. He was absent from work after October 4, 1950, on the alleged ground of illness but he was sent for on October 7, and appeared before the Director of Administrator Mr. F.C. Gora and he gave an explanation that he (the appellant) had lost the Railway Receipt along with another Railway Receipt and blank credit notes which had been signed by the Petrol and Transport Officer. He also stated that he did not know that the goods covered by that Railway Receipt had been cleared. After this explanation the appellant was handed over to the police and a case was registered against him at the instance of Mr. F.C. Gora on October 7, 1950.

3. On the following day, that is, October 8, 1950, the appellant made a statement to Sub-Inspector Sumer Shah Singh that he had given the goods to Gurbachan Singh who was traced and in the presence of this Sub-Inspector who was not in uniform at the time Gurbachan Singh handed over Rs. 200 to the appellant which the Sub-Inspector took possession of and then Gurbachan Singh took the party which consisted of the Sub-Inspector, Dharam Vir of the Central Tractor Organization and witness Kartar Singh to the premises of Amar Singh at Motia Khan where iron and steel goods were seized and recovery memos prepared. Of the goods covered by the consignment, seven packages were later recovered from the Lahori Gate Goods Depot.

4. The defence of the appellant was that he took delivery of the goods on October 2 and 3 and removed them to another Railway Siding known as Saloon Siding where the goods of the Central Tractor Organization used occasionally to be stacked to order to save wharfage and demurrage. In his evidence he stated that he removed these goods to the Saloon Siding on October 2 and 3 by means of a truck of the Central Tractor Organization which was driven by Sukhdev Singh. The appellant produced Sukhdev Singh and two Chowkidars in support of his defence that he had removed these goods from the Lahori Gate Depot to the Saloon Siding by means of the truck of Sukhdev Singh and on some carts. The High Court has not accepted this evidence. Therefore the position comes to this that the goods received in that consignment were, according to the appellant s own showing, removed from the Lahori Gate Depot but it is not proved that they reached the Saloon Siding and they did not reach the Central Tractor Organization. There is also the fact that the appellan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document