AMRITLAL RATILAL MEHTA & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 16-11-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA

Judgment (excerpt)

72 
A 
AMRITLAL RATILAL MElITA & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
November 16, 1979 
B 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
lndtan Penal Code 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) Ss 34, 420 and 477-A-Accused 
charged under section 420/34 & section 471-A/34-Acquittal on charge untie~ 
section 471-A--In appeal confirmed-Acquittal on cha_rge under section 480-
Whether follows. 
C 
Cri1ninal Trial-Finding of fact finally determined at an earlier stage of 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
cnse-At later stages-Binding' force and conclusive nature of such finding. 
The prosecution alleged that the appellants {accused) who were employees 
of a private company, wilfully and with an intention to defraud the Central 
Excise Department, made false declaration in gate passes which were prepared 
by Appellant No. I and signed by Appellant No. 
2, 
secured clearance of 
dutiable goods without payment of Central Excise Duty, and thereby caused 
wrongful loss to the Central Excise -Department. They were therefore charged 
with having committed offences punishable under sections 420 read with section: 
34 I.P.C. and section 477-A read with section 34 I.P.C. 
The. Magistrate who tried the case found that neither of 
the 
accused 
intended to cheat and make wrongful .gain but that they made a false entry in 
the g3.te passes with a view to help their employers, and acquitted both of them· 
of the charge under section 420 read with section 34 I.P.C., but 
convicted 
them under section 477-A read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them t<> 
pay fines. 
In the appellants' appeal, the Sessions Judge found that the gate passes were 
prepared by the accused under a mistake, that the worst that could be said 
against them was that they acted inadvertently or negligently that the expres-
Sion "intent to defraud'' denoted some element of dishonesty and that the appel-
lants having acted neither wilfully nor with intent to defraud the Government,. 
acquitted them of-ihe charge under section 477-A read with section 34. 
The' State filed two appeals in the High Court, one against the order of 
acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge on the charge under section r>477-A 
read with section 34 I.P.C., and the other, 
against the order of acquittal 
re-
corded by the Magistrate1 on the charge· under section 420 read with section 34 
l.P.C. The former appeal was dismissed summarily by a Division Bench, while 
the latter was allowed by a Single Judge who imposed a sentence of fine. The 
Judgo was of the view that the acquittal of the oharge under section 477-A was 
not a bar to a conviction under section 420 as the ingredients of 
the two 
offences were different, and that the gist of the offence under section 477-A was 
that the false entries mnst have been made wilfully and with intent to defraud 
whereas the essence of the offence under section 420 was that the 
accused 
should have acted dishonestly. 
• 
• 
' 
t 
' 
( 
• 
• 
• 
' 
A. R. MEHTA v. GUJARAT (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 
7 3 
Jn the appeal, lo this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
A 
that the findings of fact recorded by the Session! Judge on the charge under 
section 477-A read with section 34 I.P.C. having become final as a result of 
the dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench, the charge under section 420 
read with section 34 l.P.C. would automatically fail. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. The question about the binding force, of a finding at an earlier 
B 
stage would depend on the question as to what the alle~tions were and what 
were the facts required to be proved and what findings were arrived at. The 
question is not whether the ingredients of the two offences are· the same but 
whether the facts alleged and required to be proved in the particular case to 
establish the offences are basically the same. 
[76 A·B] 
Bhagat Rani 
v. 
State of 
l~ajasthan [1972] 2 S.C.C. 466; 
State 
of 
(~ 
Rajastha1i v. 1 arachand Jain [19741 3 S.C.C. 72 referred to. 
In the instant case the charges against the appellants showed that the essen· 
tial allegation to be proved was whether the gate passes were made 'dishonestly' 
so far as se.ction 420 was concerned and "with intent to defraud'' so far as the 
charge under section 477·A was concerned. 
A finding that the gate passes 
were made inadvertently and negligently was destructive of @oth the charg(s. 
[76 CJ 
2. If for the purpose of the offence under section 477·A, the court found 
that the entries made by the accused in the gate passes were 1nade 

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