LexG. S. BANSAL versus THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 Ho iMZO' Cai Form v. Slot1 of Biliar Gajtndro1adkor J, 1963 March 21 .. ' 470 SUPREME COURTREPORTS[l964] vot, Court has consistently refrained from laying down u~duly broad or catego~ical propositions in dealing with the somewhat difficult disputes which the definition contained in s. 2 (j) raises before industrial a.djud.ica.tion. In the present case, the dispute raised hes w11l11n a narrow compass and it is on that narrow basis that we have decided it. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Appeals dismis1ed. G. S. BANSAL v. THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION (K. SunBA RAO, RAOHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLK.AR jj). Criminal Trial-Forgery of <a/uahle security-Afoney due to accused--Obtaininy by commitling forgery-Intention, if dit- lwneat and frauduunt-Indian P•nal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of ]860), 88, 2.J, 25, 463, .J64, 167. J, the father of the appellant, had purchased Post Office Nation•! Savings Certificates of Rs. 250'- in the name of the Controller of Rationing and had deposited them with him as security for his ration depot. Subsequently, J applied for release of the security as he had transferred the ration depot. But before the security could be released J died. The appellant put the signatures of J on the relevant documents, attested then1 hitnsclf, gor the securities transferred in the name of J and obtained the money from the Post Office. He was tri•d and convic:ted under s. 4!>7 Indian Prnal Code for forging a valuable security. The appellant contended that he was not guilty of forgery a• he had received money which was due to him as the sole heir of his father and that he had gained no advantage to himself nor caused any iRjury to another. '·· 2 s.c.R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 47i Held, that the appellant was rightly convicted under s. 467 Indian Penal Code. By adopting the device he saved himself the expense of obtaining a succession certificate and gained an economic advantage. Further, he relieved himself of the trouble of satisfying the Rationing Authority and the Post Ma1ter General that he was the sole heir of his father and gained an un·economic advantage. He had thus made the false document both dishonestly and fraudulently. Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration, [1963] Supp. 2 S. C. R. 585 distinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal A peal No. 219of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 7, 1960, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 45-D ofl959. A. 8. R. Chari, J.B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. Frank Anthony and R. N, Bachthey, for the respondent. 1963. March 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SuBBA R.~o J.-This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab, Circuit Bench, Delhi, confirming those of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, convicting the appellant under s. 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 250/-. The appellant is an Under Secretary, now under suspension, in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, and is the son of Janki Pershad. Janki Pershad held a ration depot in Delhi. In the year 1948 Janki Pershad purchased 196J G. S, Bansi:l v. Delhi Adminz'stratio,. Subba Rao J. G, S. B1J1Sd •• D1/4i A/,,.ilfistr4ti~n Sul!o lfn J. ' 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. three Post Office National Savings Certificates of the face value of Rs. 250/·in the name of the Controller of Rationing, Deihi, and depo~ited the same with him as security. On February 21, 1952, .Janki Pershad transferred the ration depot in favour of his grandson, S. K. Bansal, the son of the appellant. Thereafter, on April lli, 1952, Janki Pershad applied to the rationing authority for the release of the said security on the ground that he had transferred the concerned ration depot in favour of his grandson who had given a fresh cash security of his own. Before the said security given by him was released, Janki Pershad died on June l, 1952. On July 1, HJi'i2, the ration- ing authority wrote a letter to J anki Pershad, not knowing that he had died, informing him that the security deposited by him had been released and that he should get the pledged certificates transferred in his favour by filling in the prescribed form sent with that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.