LexHARGUN SUNDER DAS GODEJA & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.l 38 HARGUN SUNDER DAS GOD~A & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA March 26, 1910 [A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 13&-Criminal Appeal by special lea\.'e-Revie1v of evide•1ce by Suprenze Court. The appellants were charged with the offences of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust in respect of 80 bags of wheat. They were <:onvicted by the High Court for various offences under the· Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The evidence disclosed that there were some irregularities in the matter of keeping the records relating to storage of stocks at the storage sheds. It was therefore contended in appeal by special leave, to this Court, that the evidence should be review- ed to see if the prosecution had established by unimpeachable evidence that the 80 bags were in fact not received at the storage shed and, that 110 presumption should be drawn against the appellants for their failure to give evidence as to where and to whom the bags were delivered. HELD : Non-appearance of an accused as a witne55 in his own dofence. does not give rise to any presumption against him. [141 CJ · HELD, a.lso : Negative onus can also be discharged by circumstantial evidence if it is trustworthy and with unerring certainty establishes facts ·and circumstances, the combined effect df which leads to the only sa(e inference of guilt. The court has, however, to be watchful to ensure that conjectures or suspicions do not take the place of proof. The chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete and admit of no reasonable ·conclmion consistent with the innocence of the accused. [141 E-F] HELD further: under Art, 136 this Court does not normally pro- ceed to review the evidence in criminal cases unless the trial is vitiated bv some illegality or material . irregularity of procedure or the trial is helJ in violation of rules of natural justice resulting in unfairness to the accused or the jud~ment or order uncicr appeal has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. This Article reserves to this Court a special discretionary power to interfere in suitable cases when for special reasons it considers that in- terference is called for in the larger interests of justice. [145 A-CJ HELD further : This Article cannot be so construed as to confer on a pa'rty right of appeal where none exists under the law. [145 CJ Jn the present case there were irregul:rrities ii\ the storage records and the evidence was looked into see if the charge as 1framed was proved. (145 C-DJ · · [An examination of the ent,ire evidence, oral and documentary, how- ever, showed. that there was enough evidence to snpport the conviction ·and that the irregularities were unimportant.] [145 A) C!Mda Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr. A. No. 125 of 1961 dt. 12-1-1968, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 153, 155 and 172 of 1987. A B c D E F G H A HARGUN V. MAHARASHTRA (Dua, J.) 139 Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 3, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 617, 621, 619 aind 620 of 1965. A. S. R. Chari, N. H. Hingorani and K. Hingorani, for · appe:Jant No. l (in Cr. A. No. 153 of 1967). B N. H. Hingorani and K. Hingorani, for appellant No. 2 (in c D E G H Cr. A.. No. 153 of 1967). A. ·s. R. Chari, and N. N. Keswani, for appellant (in Cr. A. No. 155 of 1967). W. S~ Bar/inga~ and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 172of1967). M. S. K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent (in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J,. The four appellants in these three appeals by special lea~e were tried in the court of the Special Judge for Greater Bombay on a charge of conspiracy punishable under s. 120-B, U'.C. Accused No. 1 (Shiv Kumar Lokumal Bhatia) was a godown clerk; accused No. 2 (Hargun Sunderdas Gode- ja) was the Senior-Godown Keeper and accused No. 3 (Hund- raj Harchomal . Man)l;tani) was the Godown Superintendent at the General Motors Godown at T-Shed, Sewri, Bombay, belong- in)l; to the Food Department of the Government of India. Accused No. 4 (Shankar Maruthi Phadtare) was a driver of Truck No. 2411. The allegation against them was that all these accused during the month of July, 1963 were parties to criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in res- pect t}f 1060 bags of red wheat which were released f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.