Skip to content


SamiruddIn Sarkar Vs. Nibaran Chandra Ghose - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1904)ILR31Cal928
AppellantSamiruddIn Sarkar
RespondentNibaran Chandra Ghose
Cases ReferredEmperor v. Gulzari Lal
Excerpt:
criminal breach of trust - breach of trust of gross sum--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) sections 222, 234--charge--penal code (act xl v of 1860) section 408. - .....occurring within the period of one year.2. the charge recites that the accused realized by certain rent receipts, 23 in number, the sum of rs. 103, of which the accused misappropriated the sum of rs. 67. we think such a charge comes clearly within the provisions of clause (2) of section 222 of the code of criminal procedural by specifying the rent receipts the charge went beyond what was necessary, and was to this extent favourable to the accused, because it gave him an opportunity of meeting the accusation regarding the misappropriation of a gross sum of rs. 67. the case of emperor v. gulzari lal (1902) i.l.r. 24 all. 254 is in point and supports this view of the matter.3. the second ground is that the sessions judge does not appear to have given due consideration to the allegations of.....
Judgment:

Pratt and Handley JJ.

1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside, the first ground being that the trial should have been confined to three instances of alleged misappropriation occurring within the period of one year.

2. The charge recites that the accused realized by certain rent receipts, 23 in number, the sum of Rs. 103, of which the accused misappropriated the sum of Rs. 67. We think such a charge comes clearly within the provisions of Clause (2) of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedural By specifying the rent receipts the charge went beyond what was necessary, and was to this extent favourable to the accused, because it gave him an opportunity of meeting the accusation regarding the misappropriation of a gross sum of Rs. 67. The case of Emperor v. Gulzari Lal (1902) I.L.R. 24 All. 254 is in point and supports this view of the matter.

3. The second ground is that the Sessions Judge does not appear to have given due consideration to the allegations of the accused that the rent receipts were tampered with by the ryots and to the fact that only one witness gave evidence regarding each receipts.

4. It now appears that the rent receipts bear no sign of being tampered with, and that they are supported by other evidence besides that of the tenants, to whom the receipts were granted. As has been pointed out by the Deputy Magistrate in his explanation, the witness Bholanath proved certain receipts. Sheriatulla Munshi, who knows the handwriting of the accused, proves it upon ten of the receipts.

5. Under the circumstances we see no reason to interfere. The Rule is discharged, and the prisoner must surrender to his bail in order to serve out the remainder of his sentence.


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