JAIKRISHNADAS MANOHARDAS DESAI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 16-03-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
3 S.C.R. SUPRE.l.VIE COURT REPORTS 
319 
delivery of possession of the jagir, or a writ directing 
z96° 
commutation otherwise than under the provisions of 
Sarwarlal , 
the Commutation Regulation. It may also be observed 
v. 
that the Parliament has, by the Constitution (1st State of Hyderabad 
Amendment) Act, included the Abolition and the _ -· -· · 
-
Commutation Regulations in the ninth schedule, and 
Shah]. 
by virtue of Art. 3l(B), the two Regulations are 
exempt from challenge on the ground that they are 
inconsistent with or take away or abridge any of the 
fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the 
Constitution. 
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with 
costs. 
Civil Appeal No. 686 of 1957. 
This appeal raises the same question which has been 
decided in the companion Appeal No. 392of1956 and 
for reasons set out therein, this appeal must fail and 
is dismissed with costs. 
Appeals dismissed. 
JAIKRISHNADAS MANOHARDAS 
DESAI AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(JAFER IMAM, K. N. WANCHOO and J. 0. SHAH, JJ.) 
Criminal Breach of Trust-Ingredients of-(:ommon inte~tion­
Meaning of-Indian Penal Code (XLV ojI86o), ss. 409, 34. 
The first appellant was the Managing Director and the second 
appellant a Director and technical expert of a cloth dyeing 
concern known as Parikh Dyeing and Printing Mills Ltd. The 
company entered into a contract with the Textile Commissioner 
undertaking to dye a large quantity of cloth which was supplied 
to the company for'i:hat purpose. In pursuance of the contract 
certain quantity of cloth was dyed and delivered to the Textile 
Commissioner by the company but it failed to dye and deliver the 
balance of cloth which remained in its possession and was not 
returned to the Textile Commissioner in spite of repeated 
demands. Ultimately the two appellants were prosecuted for 
criminal breach of trust under s. 409 read with s. 34 of the Indian 
Penal Code and were convicted for the same in a trial by jury. 
z960 
March z6. 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
I960 
In appeal the High Court reviewed the evidence on the gronnd of 
misdirection to the jury but found that the two appellants were 
Jaikrishnadas 
liable to account for the cloth over which they had dominion, and 
M anohardas Desai having failed to do so each of them was guilty of the offence of 
v. 
criminal breach of trust. The High Court refused to accept the 
State of Bombay appellants' plea that the cloth was old and was eaten up by 
white ants and moths. On appeal by the appellants by special 
leave: 
Shah f· 
Held, that to establish a charge of criminal breach of trust, 
the prosecution was not bound to prove the precise mode of con-
version, misappropriation or misapplication by the accused of the 
property entrusted to him or over which he had dominion. The 
principal ingredient of the offence of criminal breach of trust 
being dishonest misappropriation the mere failure of the accused 
to account for the property entrusted to him might not be the 
foundation of his conviction in all cases but where he was unable 
to account and rendered an explanation for his failure which was 
untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent 
might readily be made. 
The essence of liability under s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code 
is the existence of a common intention animating the offenders 
and the participation in a criminal act in furtherance of the 
common intention. The physical presence at the scene of offence 
of the offender sought to be rendered liable under s. 34 is not, on 
the words of the statute, one of the conditions of its applicability 
in every case. 
Barendra Kumar Chose v. The King Emperor, (r929) L.R. 52 
I.A. 40, followed. 
Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The State of Bombay, 
[r955] I S.C.R. n77, explained and distinguished. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 159 of 1!!57. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated February 14, 1956, of the Bombay High 
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1232 of 1955, arising out _ 
of the judgment and order dated October 3, 1955, of 
the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in 
Case No. 38 V. Sessions 1955. 
Purshottam Tricumdas, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. 
Shroff, for appellant No. 1. 
Appellant No. 2 did not appear. 
H. J. Umrigar, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the 
respondent. 
1960. March 16. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SHAH, J.-At a trial held with the aid of a common 
jury in Case

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