Dua, J. - (1.) Pursuant to a complaint by Shri. Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya, the appellant Sushil Kumar Gupta was tried in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tripura on the following charges:"(1) That you in between the month of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at Agartala P. S. Kotwali being a servant viz., Secretary in the employment of the Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., and in such capacity entrusted with certain property to wit, a total sum of Rs. 18,200 being the fund of the Society, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly that you in between the period of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at the same place being a Secretary in the employment of the Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., wilfully and with intent to defraud, falsified certain books and other relevant papers to wit cash book etc., which belonged to the said society, your employer and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court".
(2.) As the appellant was tried jointly along with five others who have been acquitted and as it was argued on behalf of the appellant that in view of the acquittal of his co-accused the appellant also should have been acquitted, the charges against them may also be reproduced: "That Sushil Kumar Gupta, Secretary of the Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., in between the period of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at Agartala p. s. Kotwali committed the offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 18,200/- and that you the aforesaid persons at the same place and time abetted the said Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta in the commission of the same offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount which was committed in the consequence of your abetment and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section.109, I. P. C. read with Section 408, I. P. C. and within my cognizance. Secondly - that Shri Kumar Gupta, Secretary of the Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., in between the period of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at Agartala p. s. Kotwali committed the offence of falsification of accounts and that you the aforesaid person at the same place and time abetted the said Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta in the commission of the same offence of falsification of account which was committed in consequence of your abetment and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 109, Indian Penal Code read with Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance-" The trial Court acquitted all the six accused persons. An appeal against the acquittal of all of them was preferred under S. 417 (3) , Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Tripura. That Court allowed the appeal against S. K. Gupta only and dismissed it as against the others. S. K. Gupta was held guilty of the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 408, Indian Penal Code and also of the offence of falsification of accounts under Section 477-A, Indian Penal Code regarding the sum of Rs. 18,200/-. He was sentenced under each count to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, the sentences to be concurrent.
(3.) The convict S. K. Gupta has appealed to this Court on certificate granted under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution, The order granting the certificate does not disclose on its face what exactly the difficulty of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner is and precisely what question of outstanding difficulty this Court is desired to settle. On behalf of the appellant his learned advocate Shri Ramamurthy, however, addressed elaborate arguments questioning the order of the learned Judicial Commissioner allowing the appeal against the appellant S. K. Gupta's acquittal. His Challenge was based on three main contentions. The fourth point that the learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law in considering Ex. P-59 to be admissible in evidence, in disagreement with the trial Court, according to which it was hit by Section 24, Indian Evidence Act, was not allowed to be argued in this Court because this ground was not taken in the grounds of appeal.;