LexCHANDI PRASAD SINGH versus THE ST ATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1035 CHAND! PRASAD SINGH v. THE ST ATE OF UTT AR PRADESH. [VIVIAN Bos£ and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] Trial before Sessions Tudge for an offence under s. 409, l.P.l. with the aid of asses;·ors for misappropriating certain sums of money from three different persons-Received by appellant as Secretary of a Company-And for an offence under s. 477-A, l.P.C. for falsifyi11t a minute book-With the aid of Turv-Same persons acting as assessors and iurors-V ~rdict of not guilty in respect of both charges-Dis- agreement with verdict of jury under s. 477-A and reference to the High Court under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-Dis- 11greement with the opinion of assessors under s. 409 and conviction of accused-Appeal to the High Court-Appeal and reference both heard together and disposed of by one judgment by High Court-Sessions Tudge whether contravened any provision of law or committed illega- lity in acttnf!; as he did-Appellant's status-Whether that of a ser- vant 01· tnat of an age11t--S::.'·11ant and agent-Distinction between- Appellant charged with three offences under s. 409, l.P.C. and one of- fence under s. 477-A; l.P.C.-Whether contravention of s. 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedurc-S. 255 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure-Applicability of. The appellant was tried bv the Sessions Judge with the aid of assessors tor an offence under s. 409, I.P.C. for misappropriating cer- tain sums of money recei·;ed as promoter of a Company from three different persons for the purpose of allotment of shares and omitted to be brought into the Company after it was formed, and also for an oflence under s. 477-A, I.P.C. by the same Sessions Judge with the aid of a jury for the offence of falsifying a minute hook, the same persons acting both as assessors and jurors. They rc~urned a ve1 Jict of not guilty in respect of both the charges. The Sessions Judge, dis- agreeing with the verdict of the jury under s. 477-A, referred the matter to the High Court under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Pro- cedure. .Disagreeing also with the opinion of the assessors in respect of the charge under s. 409, I.P.C. he held the appellant guilty and sentenced him to 4 years' regorous imprisonment. Against this con- viction the appellant appealed to the High Court. Both the reference under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the appeal were heard togethef by the High Court. which confirmed the appellant's conviction under s. 409 and the sePtence passed by the Sessions Judge and disagreeing with the veidict of the jury it held him guilty under s. 477-A and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprison- ment. Oil appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court :- - Held (i) that the contention that when the Sessions Judge dis- agreed with the verdict of the jury and the opinion ot the assessors, l l-3'i S. C. Ind a/59 1955 Dee1mber7. 1955 Ci1a:1di PrastSd Singh v. Ti1t State of Uttar Prad•sh 1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1955 i he shoul<l have referred the \Vhole case under s. 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Co!1rt and not merely that part ot it \\'hich related to the charge under s. 477-A, l.P.C. was without force because the Sessions judge had contravened no provision of law and committed no illegality in deciding the case which related to the charge under s. 409, l.P.C. That s. 307, Code of Criminal Pm- cedure appiies in terms only to trials by a jury and the Sessions Judge had no po\ver under that section to refer cases tried with the aid of a:;sessors for the decision ot the High Court. In the present case there \VJS the further fact that both the appeal against the convic- tion under s. 409, LP.C. and the r:.:ference under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in n::spect of the charge under s. 477-A WC'I? disposed of by the same judgment ; (ii) that the contention that the appellant's true status was that of a serv;.i.nt and not that of= an agent and that he should have been tried not under s. 409, l.P.C. but under s. 408, I.P.C. ·was also without force inasmuch as his status \Vas that of an agent and not that of a servant in view of his duties as Secretary of the Society. The distinction betv:een the t\VO is this a s~rvant acts under the direct control and supervision of the master, and is bound to con- form to all reasonable orders given to him in the course of his work .. An agent though bound to exen·ise his aut
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.