JAIKRISHNADAS MANOHARDAS DESAI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY
LAWS(SC)-1960-3-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on March 16,1960

JAIKRISHNADAS MANOHARDAS DESAI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BOMBAY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHREEKANTIAH RAMAYYA MUNIPALLI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [EXPLAINED]



Cited Judgements :-

RAM NARAIN POPLY VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2003-1-79] [REFERRED]
RABINDRA KUMAR DEY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1976-8-16] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SATYA NARAYAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. KUL CHANDRA BARAL [LAWS(SIK)-2004-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. SHRI SONAM WANGDI LEPCHA [LAWS(SIK)-2012-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2013-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
WARYAM SINGH VS. THE STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1971-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA WARRIER VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1964-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
ACHUTANANDA RANA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1986-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKHILAWAN CHANDRASHEKHAR KUSHWAHA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1995-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
K.VIJAYAKUMAR,S/O. T.K.KRISHNA PANICKER VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-101] [REFERRED TO]
P M CHANDRA VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1982-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-475] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GANESH CHANDRA DIHINGIA VS. D.S.P.E. (CBI) [LAWS(GAU)-1995-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
LALCHAND B PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
COMMANDER V S BATRA VS. CHIEF OF THE NAVAL STAFF [LAWS(DLH)-1998-7-1] [REFERRED]
KEDARNATH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1977-11-58] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U P VS. HAZARI LAL GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-1980-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
SHUSHIL KUMAR BAGLE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2003-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN GARNAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2021-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRUSHNA TRIPATHY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1982-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF ORISSA VS. GOPINATH DAS [LAWS(ORI)-1986-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED HANEEFA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-158] [REFERRED TO]
ANUP AGRAWAL @ ANUP KEWELKA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
ANUP AGRAWAL @ ANUP KEWELKA AND ALOK AGRAWAL @ ALOK KEWELKA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-12-148] [REFERRED TO]
RATINDRA NATH BASU RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
M.K. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-210] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KALAM @ GAONBURAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG S/O TUKARAM THAKARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-202] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMDAS B KATIRA VS. O P BHARDWAJ [LAWS(BOM)-1984-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
BROJENDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR VS. THE STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1968-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SHAMSHER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2020-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR CHAND SAB NANADIKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2003-9-18] [REFERRED]
R VENKATAKRISHNAN VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2009-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
S BASKAR VS. COMMISSIONER PUDUKOTTAI MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VARGHESE VS. N J MATHEW [LAWS(KER)-1962-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
R S SODHI VS. PARTHA PRATIM SAIKIA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
SABBIRBHAI YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1990-7-10] [RELIED ON]
Kedarnath, Accused VS. State [LAWS(ALL)-1964-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH DUTT VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2001-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PARVEZ FRAMROZE FARMARJI [LAWS(BOM)-2005-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR HIGH COURT VS. B SANJEEVALAH [LAWS(APH)-1995-6-45] [REFERRED]
VIKASH KOTHARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1991-1-121] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY DIXIT VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-81] [REFERRED TO]
MANIK LAL MAJUMDER VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV PRASAD CHUNI LAL JAIN PYARELAL ISHWARDAA KAPOOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1964-2-19] [DISTINGUISHED]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. KESAR SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1966-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. KESAR SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
NIHAR RANJAN PATI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2018-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
Chain Sukh Ranga VS. State of Rajasthan [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SURENDRANATH PATNAIK [LAWS(ORI)-1974-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
CHARU CHANDRA PATNAIK VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1981-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR BEHERA VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1992-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
Ram Khilawan Kushwah VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1995-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
D.RAMACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-5-150] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. RATTAN CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR MISRA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1989-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
M.R.BHAT VS. INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY [LAWS(KAR)-2020-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
KUL CHANDRA BARAL VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2012-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGOBINDA MOHAPATRA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
M.V. SURYANARAYANA VS. THE STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1961-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
BANAMBER MAHARANA VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1965-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE VS. TRIBIKRAM BOHIDAR [LAWS(ORI)-1971-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
K. VIJAYAKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-2-153] [REFERRED TO]
JAI MATA DI RICE MILL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. ESHWARAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-1987-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR BAGLA VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2003-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
C.S. UMRALKAR VS. RAJKUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(BOM)-1975-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. GOPINATH PANIGRAHI [LAWS(ORI)-1995-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. RAJKISHORE SINGH SAMANTA AND THREE ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1964-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGABAN MOHANTY VS. SUDARSAN NAIK [LAWS(ORI)-1973-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. IFTIKHAR KHAN [LAWS(SC)-1973-1-22] [RELIED UPON]
INDER MOHAN PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1989-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAI KUMAR JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2018-8-187] [REFERRED TO]
GNANASEKARAN VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C.C.I.W, C.I.D, CUDDALORE [LAWS(MAD)-1984-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
BHANUBHAI RAMBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1976-2-16] [REFERRED]
ASHOKA ALLOYS LTD VS. ARUN STEELS [LAWS(HPH)-2006-11-9] [DISTINGUISHED]
STATE VS. G RAVINDRAN ACHARI [LAWS(CAL)-2003-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
BIRBAL ETC. VS. STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1971-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
L NICHOLAS VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD NILGIRIS [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-100] [REFERRED TO]
K. VIJAYAKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-120] [REFERRED TO]
E. KALLUVEDAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1974-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
BAL MUKUND AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2009-11-96] [REFERRED TO]
V KOTHARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1991-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. OUSEPH VERGHESE [LAWS(BOM)-1974-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LACHMANDAS AJWANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1990-11-37] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)At a trial held with the aid of a common jury in case No. 38 of the Vth Session 1955 before the Additional Sessions Judge, City Court Greater Bombay, the two appellants were convicted of offences under S. 409 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the first appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and the second appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years. In appeal, the High Court of Bombay reviewed the evidence, because in the view of the Court, the verdict of the jury was vitiated on account of a misdirection on a matter of substantial importance, but held that the conviction of the two appellants for the offence under S. 409 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was, on the evidence, not liable to be set aside. The High Court accordingly confirmed the conviction of the two appellants but reduced the sentence passed upon the first appellant to rigorous imprisonment for three years and the sentence against the second appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have appealed to this court with special leave.
(2.)The facts which gave rise to the charge against the two appellants are briefly these :
(3.)On June 15, 1948, the Textile Commissioner invited tenders for dyeing Pugree Cloth. The Parikh Dyeing and Printing Mills Ltd., Bombay - hereinafter to be referred to as the company - of which the first appellant was the Managing Director and second appellant was a Director and technical expert, submitted a tender which was accepted on July 27, 1948, subject to certain general and special conditions. Pursuant to the contract, 2,51,059 3/4 yds. of cloth were supplied to the company for dyeing. The company failed to dye the cloth within the stipulated period and there was correspondence in that behalf between the company and the Textile Commissioner. Approximately 1,11,000 yards out of the cloth were dyed and delivered to the Textile Commissioner. On March 25, 1950, the company requested the Textile Commissioner to cancel the contract and by his letter dated April 3, 1950, the Textile Commissioner complied with the request, and cancelled the contract in respect of 96,128 yards. On November 20, 1950, the contract was cancelled by the Textile Commissioner in respect of the balance of cloth and the company was called upon to give an account without any further delay of the balance undelivered and it was informed that it would be held responsible for "material spoiled or not accounted for". On December 4, 1950, the company sent a statement of account setting out the quantity of cloth actually delivered for dyeing, the quantity of cloth returned duly dyed and the balance of cloth viz., 1,32,160 yards remaining to be delivered. Against the cloth admitted by the company remaining to be delivered, it claimed a wastage allowance of 2,412 yards and admitted liability to deliver 1,29,748 yards lying with it on Government account.
It appears that about this time, the company was in financial difficulties. In December 1950, the first appellant left Bombay to take up the management of a factory in Ahmedabad and the affairs of the company were managed by one R. K. Patel. In June 1952, an application for adjudicating the two appellants insolvents was filed in the Insolvency Court at Ahmedabad. An insolvency notice was also taken out against the two appellants at the instance of another creditor in the High Court at Bombay. Proceedings for winding up the company were commenced in the High Court at Bombay. In the meantime, the mortgagee of the machinery and factory of the company had entered into possession under a covenant reserved in that behalf, of the premises of the factory of the company.

The Textile Commissioner made attempts to recover the cloth remaining undelivered by the company. A letter was posted by the Textile Commissioner on April 16, 1952, calling upon the company to deliver 51,756 yards of cloth lying with it in bleached condition to the Chief Ordinance Officer, Ordnance Depot, Sewri, but the letter was returned undelivered. It was ultimately served with the help of the police on the second appellant in October 1952. Thereafter on November 7, 1952, another letter was addressed to the company and the same was served on the second appellant on November 25, 1952. By this letter, the company was reminded that 1,35,726 3/4 yards of cloth were lying with it on account of the Government and the same had to be accounted for, and that the instructions to deliver 51,756 yards to the Chief Ordinance Officer, Ordnance Depot, Sewri, had not been attended to. The Textile Commissioner called upon the company to send its representatives to "clarify the position" and to account for the material. After receiving this letter, the second appellant attended at the office of the Textile Commissioner and on November 27, 1952, wrote a letter stating that "the main factors involved in not delivering the goods in finished state was that the material was very old", was "dhobi-bleached in different lots", was "bleached under different conditions and therefore unsuitable for vat colour dyeing in heavy shades", that it varied in length, weight, and finish and had "lost affinity for vat colour dyeing". It was also stated that the company had in dyeing the basic material, suffered "huge losses" estimate at Rs. 40,000/-. It was then stated: "We are, therefore, however prepared to co-operate with the Government and are willing to make good the Government's bare cost. Please let us know the detail and the actual amount to be deposited so that we may do so at an early date. We shall thank you if we are given an appointment to discuss the matter as regards the final amount with respect to the balance quantity of the basic material.".

On December 29, 1952, the premises of the company and the place of residence of the appellants were raided, but no trace of the cloth was found. A complain was then filed with the police charging the two appellants with criminal breach of trust in respect of 1,32,404 1/2 yards of cloth belonging to the Government.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.