Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th April, 1961
UBBA RAO AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Purushottamdas Dalmia, Appellant
Versus
State of W.B., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate (M/s. K. C. Jain and B. P. Maheswari, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (M/s. H. R. Khanna and D. Gupta, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Ss. 177, 235, 239 - JURISDICTION OF COURT TO TRY OFFENCES COMMITTED IN COURSE OF SAME TRANSACTION - CONSPIRACY - CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY IN ALTERNATIVE - MISDIRECTION TO JURY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Purushottamdas Dalmia, was convicted of offences under S. 120-B read with S. 471, I. P. C., and on two counts under S. 471 read with S. 466, I. P. C., with respect to two documents. The appellant applied for a licence for importing rupees one crore worth of art silk yarn. The Joint Chief Controller of Imports, Calcutta, issued a provisional licence. The appellant was duly informed of the refusal to confirm the licence. The appellant s appeal against the refusal to confirm the licence was dismissed in September 1952. The provisional licences issued were returned to the appellant. The appellant met Kalyanam at Calcutta, Kalyanam told the appellant that he could get the licence validated through the good offices of one of his acquaintances, Rajan by name, at Delhi. Both these persons came to Delhi in August 1953 and visited Rajan. The appellant made over the file containing the licences to Kalyanam who in his turn made over the same to Rajan. Two or three days later Kalyanam returned the licences containing the alleged forged endorsements to the appellant. The forged endorsements related to the confirmation of the licence and its re-validation till May 2, 1954. Thereafter, orders were placed on the basis of the re-validated licence and when the goods arrived attempt was made to clear them at Madras. The clearing office at Madras suspected the genuineness of the confirmation and re-validating endorsements and finding the suspicion confirmed, made over the matter to the Police. As a result of the investigation and preliminary enquiry, the appellant and Kalyanam were committed to the High Court for trial.
Finding of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant of the offences under Section 471 read with S. 466, I. P. C., even though those offences, in pursuance of the conspiracy, were committed at Madras. The charge of conspiracy does not suffer from any illegality. The charge to the jury does not suffer from the defect of misdirection.
Issues: 1. Whether the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant of the offences under Section 471 read with S. 466, I. P. C., even though those offences, in pursuance of the conspiracy, were committed at Madras? 2. Whether the charge of conspiracy suffers from any illegality? 3. Whether the charge to the jury suffers from the defect of misdirection?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Ss. 235 and 239 of the Code are enabling sections, and the Legislature, rightly, did not use the expression which would have made it incumbent on the Court to try a person of the various offences at one trial or to try various persons for the different offences committed in the course of the same transaction together. The omission to make such peremptory provision does not necessarily indicate the intention of the legislature that the Court having jurisdiction to try certain offences cannot try an offence committed in the course of the same transaction, but beyond its jurisdiction. 2. The charge of conspiracy was one of conspiracy, it being a conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards. The particular offence to be committed was described in the alternative. One was to commit an offence of forgery and to use the forged document and the other was the offence of fraudulently or dishonestly using the licence containing the forged certificates and endorsements. The expression and/or in the first charge simply meant that the offences they had conspired to commit consisted either of the offence of commit forgery and subsequently to use the forged document as genuine or the object was merely to use the licence with forged endorsements even though there was not any conspiracy to commit forgeries in the licences. In other words, the charge was that the appellant and Kalyanam entered into a conspiracy to commit offences, punishable with rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards and that the offences contemplated to include the offence of using the licence with forged endorsements and may also include the offence of forging the licence. Thus there was no case of two alternative conspiracies. The conspiracy was one and it being doubtful what the facts proved would establish about the nature of offences to be committed by the conspirators, the charge illustrated the offence in this form. 3. The Judge has at places expressed in unequivocal language what appears to him to be the effect of certain pieces of evidence. But that, in our opinion, has not been in such a setting that it be held that the jury must have felt bound to find in accordance with that opinion. The Judge has, at various places, stated that the jury was not bound by his opinion, that it had to come to its own conclusion on questions of fact and that it was the function of the jury to decide all questions of fact.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of the Calcutta High Court dated May 16, 1958, summarily dismissing the appeal of the appellant from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court convicting him on jury trial of offences under S. 120-B read with S. 471, I. P. C., and on two counts under S. 471 read with S. 466, I. P. C., with respect to two documents. L. N. Kalvanam, who was also tried at the same trial and convicted of the offences under S. 120-B read with S. 471, I. P. C., two counts under S. 466, I. P. C., and of the offence under S. 109, read with S. 471, I. P. C., did not appeal against his conviction.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant Purushottamdas Dalmia was one of the partners of the firm known as Laxminaryan Gourishankar which had its head office at Gaya and branch at Calcutta. The Calcutta branch was located at 19, Sambhu Mallick Lane. On April 26, 1952, the appellant applied for a licence for importing rupees one crore worth of art silk yarn. On May 2, 1952, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports, Calcutta, issued a provisional licence. In accordance with the rules, this licence was to be got confirmed within two months by the Deputy or Chief Controller of Imports and on such confirmation it was to be valid for a period of one year. The licence was to be treated as cancelled in case it was not got confirmed within two months of the date of issue. This provisional licence was not confirmed within two months. The appellant was duly informed of the refusal to confirm the licence. The appellant s appeal against the refusal to confirm the licence was dismissed in September 1952. The provisional licences issued were returned to the appellant. The letter communicating the dismissal of the appeal and the return of the licence was issued from the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports on September 26, 1952.
3. The letter dated September 29, 1952, from the office of the Chief Controller of Imports, New Delhi, informed the appellant with reference to the letter dated September 4, 1952, that instructions had been issued to the Joint Chief controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta, for re-consideration of such cases and that he was advised to contact that authority for further action in the matter. The appellant rightly, did not appear to take this letter to mean that the order of rejection of his appeal was still under further consideration. He did not take any steps to contact the Joint Controller of Imports and Exports on the basis of this letter. Instead, he applied on October 7, 1952, for the return of correspondence. That correspondence was returned to him on October 9, 1952.
4. Nothing happened up to March 31, 1953, on which date the appellant wrote to the Chief Controller of Imports. New Delhi, a long letter expressing his grievance at the action of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta, and requesting for a sympathetic decision. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, by his letter dated April 20, 1953, informed the appellant that the order of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports could not be revised for the reasons mentioned in that letter. This letter gave the wrong number of the appellant s firm. It mentioned its number as 16 instead of the correct number 19 . In other respects the address of this letter was correct. The appellant states that he did not received this letter.
5. In August 1953, the appellant met Kalyanam at Calcutta, Kalyanam told the appellant that he could get the licence validated through the good offices of one of his acquaintances, Rajan by name, at Delhi. Both these persons came to Delhi in August 1953 and visited Rajan. The appellant made over the file containing the licences to Kalyanam who in his turn made over the same to Rajan. Two or three days later Kalyanam returned the licences containing the alleged forged endorsements to the appellant. The forged end
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
