Skip to content


Keshav Sitaram Sali Vs. State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 70 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1983SC291; 1983CriLJ436; 1983(1)SCALE704; (1983)1SCC390
ActsProbation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 3 and 4; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 360; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 109 and 379
AppellantKeshav Sitaram Sali
RespondentState of Maharashtra
Excerpt:
- [a.k. sarkar,; j.c. shah and; m. hidayatullah, jj.] by s. 25 (4) of the income-tax act, "where the person who was at the commencement of the indian income-tax (amendment) act, 1939. carrying on any business, profession or vocation in which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1918, is succeeded in such capacity by another person, the change not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of the income, profits and gains of the period between the end of the previous year and the date of such succession." a firm bearing the same name as the appellant firm, had been carrying on business from before 1918 and had paid tax on that business under the income-tax act,..........no. 1 in the case before the special judicial magistrate first class (railways), bhusawal. the learned magistrate acquitted the appellant of that charge and against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned magistrate, the state government filed an appeal before the high court of bombay. the high court allowed the appeal and convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under section 379 read with section 109 ipc. it imposed a sentence of fine of rs. 500/- on the appellant and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. the subject matter of theft was a quantity of coal valued at rs. 8/-. after the judgment was delivered by the high court we are informed that the appellant has been taken back to duty by the railways and he is even now in.....
Judgment:

Venkataramiah, J.

1. The charge against the appellant who was an employee of the Railways was that on 12.9.1972 at Paldhi Railway Station he had abetted the commission of an offence of theft of coal from a railway goods wagon, which was committed by Bhikan Murad who was arraigned as accused No. 1 in the case before the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways), Bhusawal. The learned Magistrate acquitted the appellant of that charge and against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, the State Government filed an appeal before the High Court of Bombay. The High Court allowed the appeal and convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 109 IPC. It imposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- on the appellant and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The subject matter of theft was a quantity of coal valued at Rs. 8/-. After the judgment was delivered by the High Court we are informed that the appellant has been taken back to duty by the Railways and he is even now in ervice. Shri S. V. Tambwekar, learned Counsel for the appellant at the hearing of this appeal confined his argument to the question whether the appellant should be dealt with either under Section 360 of the CrPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958. We have heard Shri Ganpule learned Counsel for the State on the above question.

2. Having regard to the special circumstances of this case and the character and antecedents of the appellant we are of the view that this was an eminently fit case in which the High Court should have extended the benefit of either Section 360 of the CrPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of offenders Act to the appellant instead of imposing a sentence of fine on him. We, therefore, set aside the sentence imposed upon the appellant and remit the case to the Trial Court (Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways) Bhusawal to pass an appropriate order under either of the two provisions referred to above. The fine which has already been paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. The appellant shall appear before the Magistrate on any date during the second week of February 1983 to enable the Trial-Court to pass orders as directed above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //