ABINASH CHANDRA BOSE versus BIMAL CHANDRA BOSE

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 03-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
1903 
..imrif.far 1Ra,.10n and 
Silk Mills 
v. 
TJltir·.Workmen 
<;hJj~dragadkar J. 
19~11 
'564 
SUPREME COURT REPOH.TS (1963) 
·should· be treated as the invariable rate in' the· gra-
tuity schemes. On the inatetial adduced before 
us, we are not preparetl ·to hold that the basis 
adoptPd by the award under appeal ·has made 
either a violent or radical departure fromlthe 
pattern prevailing in the same industry in the 
''unjab or is 
otherwise unjustified on the merits. 
The fact that we decline to interfere with the rate 
prescribed by the award under appeal does not also 
mean that according to us, that rate should be 
adopted in other cases without reference to the 
relevant facts in each tlf them. 
The result is, the awar<l is modified by pres-
cribing a ceiling of 15 month's basic wages. 
The 
rest of the award is confirmed. 
There would be 
no order as to costs. 
ABINASH CHANDRA BOSE 
v. 
BIMAL CHANDRA BOSE 
(B. P. SINHA, C, J., K. N. WANCHoo and 
J. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Criminal Breach of Trust-Prosecution of lawyer by client-
Hand-writing expert neither called nor examined-Acquittal by 
trial Magistrale-Retrial and examination of expqr/ directtrl by 
High Court on appeal~Propriety. 
The appellant, a practising lawyer engaged by the 
respondent to investigate title in respect of a property which 
the latter wanted to purchase, was prosecuted by him on a 
charge under s. 409 of the Indian Penal C_ode for misappro· 
priating a mm.of Rs. 50001· entrusted to him for that purpose. 
The prosecution mainly depended on a letter written by the 
appellant which would show that a sum of Rs. 4200/· out of 
the said amount of Rs. 50001- had been asked for by the 
11ppellant. This letter was challenged as a forgery by the 
, .. 
3 s.c.:R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
565 
appellant. The respondent did not call a hand-writing expert 
nor was he denied an opportunity to do so. The trial Magis-
trate held that the pro)lecution case had not been proved and 
acquitted the appellant. The High Court on appeal by the 
respondent set aside the order of acquittal on the ground that 
the appellant was a practising lawyer in fiduciary relationship 
with his client and directed that the appellant be retried by 
another Magistrate with opportunity to the respondent to 
examine a· hand-writing expert in order to establish the 
genuineness of the said letter. It held that since the case was 
one not between ordinary litigants but between a lawyer 
and.his client, involving a fiduciary relationship, no steps 
should be spared to ensure complete justice between the 
parties and the case must be sent back even though the 
prosecution did not avail of the opportunity of proving its 
own case. 
Held, that the order of the High Court were entirely 
erroneous and must be set aside. There was no ground for 
directing a retrial and the appellant could not be put to a 
second trial for the same offence 'simply because of the failure 
of the complainant to adduce all the evidence that should, and 
could, have been adduced. The fact that the appellant was a 
lawyer could make no difference and the same rules of crimi-
nal jurisprudence that applied to all must apply to him. 
Further, the High Court was not exercising disciplinary juris-
diction and no relationship of lawyer and client was involved 
in, the,crimioal case. 
CRIMIN.AL APPELLATE JurusDIOTION: Criminal 
App~al No. 119 of 1961. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
December 21, 1960, . of the Calcutta High Court in 
Cr. A. No. 423 of 1958. 
P: .K. Ohakravarty, for the appellant. 
S. 0. Mazumdar, for respondent No. 1. 
D. N. Mukherjee, 
P. K. 
Mukherjee 
for 
P . .K. Bose, for the respondent No. 2. 
1962. Augnst 3. • The Judgment of the Court 
w~a,dEjlivered by 
SINHA, C.J.-This appeal, on a certificate of fit-
ness .granted 1by the High Court under Art. 134(1) ( 0 ) 
190ll 
Abina:rh C~an//ra 
Bose 
y, 
Blmal Ch'andra Bou · 
8inAa C.J. 
196S 
Abint.:tsh Clra..ndra 
' 
/!ose · 
v. 
{l•ma~ <~:haiidr3_ ~1 
Sinha C •. 1 • 
. ; 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] 
of the Constitution, is directed against the order of 
a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, 
dated DecembP,r 21, 1960, setting aside the order 
of acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate, dated 
July 2, 1958. We heard this appeal on the eve of the 
long. vacation and pronounced our order to the 
effect that the appeal was allowed and the order of 
acquittal was to stand, and that reasons would 
b~ 
given later. 
It( appears that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.