1955 (1) TMI 38 - HC - Indian Laws

Appellant's Conviction Upheld for Criminal Breach of Trust

Amarendra Nath Roy Versus The State

Amarendra Nath Roy Versus The State - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant received the money in question.2. Whether the appellant committed criminal breach of trust.3. Legal points concerning the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the necessity of sanction for prosecution.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether the appellant received the money in questionThe court examined the evidence to determine if the appellant, a Depot Cashier at the Lake Depot, actually received the money on February 7, 1953. The prosecution's case was that the money was handed over to the appellant by Anil Krishna Ghosh and was kept in an iron safe at the Mission Row Office. Witnesses Suhrid Kumar Bose (P.W. 1), Anil Krishna Ghosh (P.W. 2), and Kalidas Sarkar (P.W. 11) testified that the money was indeed handed over to the appellant and kept in the safe in their presence. The court found no reason to disbelieve these witnesses and concluded that the amount of Rs. 6752-9-8, including Rs. 2905 in higher denomination notes, was actually made over to the appellant on February 7, 1953.Issue 2: Whether the appellant committed criminal breach of trustThe court addressed whether the appellant was responsible for the disappearance of Rs. 2905. The evidence against the appellant was circumstantial, primarily based on the fact that he was in charge of the keys to the safe. The court noted that although other people occasionally handled the keys, it was improbable that they took casts or photographs of the keys to make duplicates. The court also considered the appellant's unusual presence in the office on the night of February 9, 1953, as testified by Dibakar Dutt (P.W. 10). The court concluded that the appellant, being in charge of the keys and having the opportunity, was responsible for the disappearance of the cash. Thus, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 409 of the Penal Code.Issue 3: Legal points concerning the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the necessity of sanction for prosecutionThe appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution under Section 409 of the Penal Code was improper and that the case should have been prosecuted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires prior sanction under Section 6 of the Act. The court examined the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and concluded that it creates a new offence termed 'criminal misconduct in the discharge of official duty,' which includes acts that may also fall under Section 409 of the Penal Code. The court noted that the Act introduces certain presumptions and allows for a more lenient punishment for criminal misconduct compared to Section 409 of the Penal Code.The court held that the choice of prosecution under either enactment lies with the prosecutor, as per Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, which allows for prosecution under either or any of the applicable enactments. Therefore, the absence of prior sanction did not invalidate the prosecution under Section 409 of the Penal Code. The court also dismissed the argument of implied repeal of Section 409 by the Prevention of Corruption Act and found no basis for the claim of discrimination.ConclusionThe court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 409 of the Penal Code, finding no substance in the legal points raised by the appellant's counsel. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to surrender to his bail and serve out the sentence.