BHOGILAL CHUNILAL PANDYA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 04-11-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

T lto1nas Dana 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab 
SubU~ Rao J. 
-.-
November 4. 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
directly infringes the fundamental right under Art. 20 
(2) of the Constitution. 
No attempt has been made by the learned Solicitor 
General to contend that the offence under ss. 23 and 
23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act for 
which the petitioner is convicted is an offence differ-
ent from that for which he was prosecuted earlier 
under s. 167(8) of the Act. 
It is conceded that the decision in the writ petition 
covers the decision in the connected appeal also. In 
the result, tho writ petition and the appeal are allowed. 
ORDER 
In view of the opinion of the majority, the Petition 
and the Appeal are dismissed. 
BHOGILAL CHUNILAL PANDYA 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(N. H. BHAGW ATI, K. SuBBA HAO and 
K. N. WANCHOO,.JJ.) 
Evidence-Notes of attendance prepared by Solicitor--Admissi-
bility of for corroborating Solicitor-Statement, if communication to 
another necessary for admissibility-Indian Evidence Act, I872 (I of 
I87z), S. I57· 
The appellant, a cashier of a Company, was charged with 
committing criminal breach of trust. When the defalcation was 
discovered certain conversations took place bet\'v·een the Chair-
man and Secretary of the Company and the appellant in the 
presence of a Solicitor. Soon afterwards, the Solicitor prepared 
notes of attendance of these conversations. At the trial these 
notes were produced to corroborate the testimony of the Soli-
citor. The appellant objected that these notes were not admis-
sible under s. 157 of the Evidence Act. 
He contended that the 
word "statement" in s. 157 required the communication of the 
statement by the maker to another person and that it did not 
include any writing or memorandum made by a person for his 
own use when it was not communicated to another person. 
·-
(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
3ll 
Held, that the notes of attendance were admissible under 
1958 
s. 157· The word "statement" .in s. 157 means only "some-
thing that is stated" and the element of communication is not 
Bhogilal 
necessary before "something that is stated" becomes a state-
Chunilal Pandya 
ment under that section. 
v. 
The King v. Nga Myo, A.I.R. (1938) Rang. 177, Bhogilal 
The State 01 
Bhikachand v. The Royal Insurance Co. Ltd., A.LR. (1928) P.C. 54, 
Bombay 
referred to. 
' 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 31 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated August 8, 1957, of the Bombay High 
Court in Criminal Reference No. 129 of 1957, arising 
out of the order of Reference to the High Court dated 
December 1, 1956, of the Court of Session for Greater 
Bombay in Case No. 82 of 1956. 
Pur,~hottam Tricumdas, G. R. Ganatra and I. N. 
Shroff, for the appellant. 
O. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and R.H. 
Dhebar, for the respondent. 
1958. November 4. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
W ANCHOO, J.-This appeal by special leave is limit-
Wanchoo J. 
ed to the question of admissibility in evidence of a 
certain document in a criminal trial. The brief facts 
of the case necessary for elucidation of the question 
are these: Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya appellant was 
tried for committing criminal breach of trust in res-
pect of Rs. 4,14,750 and the trial was with the aid of 
a jury. He was the cashier in the employment of 
Messrs. Morarji Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Co. 
Ltd., Bombay. As such he was entrusted with the 
funds of the company. The charge against him was 
that between July 1 and December 1, 1954, he em-
bezzled the amount mentioned above. Among the 
witnesses for the prosecution were Gopikisan, Chair-
man, Modi, Secretary, and Santook, a solicitor of the 
company. 
When the defalcation was discovered, 
cert~in conversations took place between Gopikisan, 
Modi and Santook who was consulted in this connec-
tion, and the appellant, between January 21 and 27, 
Rhogilrtl 
Chunilal P:1ndya 
v. 
The State.of 
Boinbtiy 
H' anr.1100 } • 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
1955. Santook prepared what are ca.lied notes of at-
tendance of these conversations soon afterwards. In his 
evidence in court, Santook deposed to what has taken 
place between him and these persons on those dates. 
The notes of attendance marked Ex. V were also pro-
duced to corroborate the testimony of Santook. An 
objection was taken before the trial judge to the ad-
missibility of these notes on two grounds, namely.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.