MADAN LAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 05-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MADAN LAL 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
April 5, 1967 
(R. S. BACHAWAT AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.) 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 120B, 196(2) 
and 
409--0ffecer authorised his clerk to receive 
and 
disburse 
moneys-
Moneys not paid to persons concerned-Clerk admits receipts but alleges 
handing over to officer-Value of admission-Both charged for conspi-
racy and criminal breach of trust--Officer acquitted-If clerk could be 
convicted for criminal breach of trust-Sanction nol obtained-If con-
vicUon for criminal breach of trust vitiated. 
J had authorised the appellant a clerk under him, to withdraw moneys 
from Bank for payments to different persons. J, discovering that the 
raoneys were not paid to persons concerned, lodged a report. The ap-
pellant admitted to have withdrawn the moneys, but stated that he had 
handed them over to J, and made entries in the register showing disburse-
ment at J s instance, and J had initiated them. J was 
charged 
under 
s, 409 and the ap~t under ss, 409, 465, 477A and 120-B I.P.C. The 
Trial Court conVJcted both under ss. 120-B and 409 but the Sessions 
Judge acquitted J and convicted the appellant under s. 409 only. The 
High Court, too, maintained the appellant's conviction holding that the 
moneys having been admittedly received by the appellant, the burden of 
proof was upon him to show what he had done with them and there being 
no evidence that he handed them over to J, except his bare allegation 
he had failed to discharge that burden. 1n appeal to this Court, the ap-
pellant contended that (i) the case proceeded erroneously as if the appel-
lant had to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt that he had handed 
over the moneys to J and a reasonable doubt could have been raised in 
the prosecution evidence if the document called for by the appellant had 
been produced and his application for their production had not been re-
jected; (ii) it was not his duty as a clerk to receive these moneys and 
that he had only received them at the instance of J; (iii) the charge as 
to criminal breach of trust against the appellant and J being one under 
s. 409 read with s. 120-B and there being no charge under s. 409 simpli-
citor a conviction under s. 409 only was not valid; (iv) the trial suffered 
from misjoinder of charges in that there were six items of moneys in res-
pect of which misappropriation was alleged and three entries in respect 
of which falsification of accounts was charged against the appellant; and 
(v) though he was charged 
1D1der 
s. 120-B and s. 477-A no sanction 
under s. 196,A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was obtained and, 
therefore, the entire trial was vitiated. 
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. 
(i) There was no question of the appellant raising any reasonable 
doubt in view of his admission that he had received the moneys. There 
was no substance in the contention that if the documents had been pro-
duced the appellant could have made out a reasonably probable case that 
he had handed over the moneys to J. 
[444A-BJ 
(ii) There was evidence that the appellant not onlv used to receive 
lM!leys but also used to disburse them. Whether it was done by him 
as part of his d11ties would clearly be a matter of evidence, which cannot 
be gone into in this Court as it was not raised in the High Court. J 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1967] 3 S.C.R. 
authorised the appellant to draw and receive the moneys in question for 
A 
the express purpose of payment to different parties. There was, there-
fore, entrustrnent to the appellant of the said moneys for an express pur· 
pose. 
[4440, Fl 
Budha Lal v. State of Rajasthan, [Cr. A. No. 156 of 1962 decided on 
27th January 1965], referred to. 
(iii) If the charge of conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust 
is followed by a substantive charge of criminal breach of trust in pursu-
ance of such conspiracy there is nothing to prevent the court convicting 
an accused under the second charge even if the prosecution fails to estab-
lish conspiracy. In any event, there was no prejudice caused to him as 
he was aware that there was a substantive charge under s. 409 against 
him. 
[444H-445B] 
Kizhakkeppa//ik Moosa v. State, 
A.I.R. 1963 Kerala 68, 
disapprov-
ed. 
Willie Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1140, re-
ferred to. 
(iv) The appellant did not at any earlier stage take objection to the 
charges under ss. 409 and 477-A on the ground that he was likely to be 
embarrasse

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