Skip to content


Chimanlal Hargovandas Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1967)8GLR552
AppellantChimanlal Hargovandas
RespondentState
Excerpt:
- .....issued to one shantilal. it is not the prosecution case that the appellant himself went to a cement dealer and took the cement himself. it is the prosecution case that somebody took the cement on the permit of shantilal by personating himself as shantilal in the books of the dealer. it is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellant received the cement from the dealer and that he took the permit to the dealer. he cannot be convicted of misappropriating the permit even if a misappropriation would include the use of a permit. it is the case of the prosecution that the person who took cement was an agent of the appellant. even in such a case the appellant cannot be convicted. a person cannot be convicted of a misappropriation if his agent commits an offence of.....
Judgment:

V.B. Raju, J.

1. The appellant was convicted under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code for having taken cement on a permit issued to one Shantilal. It is not the prosecution case that the appellant himself went to a cement dealer and took the cement himself. It is the prosecution case that somebody took the cement on the permit of Shantilal by personating himself as Shantilal in the books of the dealer. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellant received the cement from the dealer and that he took the permit to the dealer. He cannot be convicted of misappropriating the permit even if a misappropriation would include the use of a permit. It is the case of the prosecution that the person who took cement was an agent of the appellant. Even in such a case the appellant cannot be convicted. A person cannot be convicted of a misappropriation if his agent commits an offence of misappropriation. There is also no satisfactory evidence that the person who actually wept and took the cement from the dealer was the agent of the appellant.

2. For both these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside.


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