LexN. M. PARTHASARATHY versus STATE BY S. P. E.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
N.M.PARTHASARATHY A v. STATE BY S.P.E. JANUARY 21, 1992 [KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.) B Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 420, I 20-B and I 09. Criminal conspiracy---Small Scafe Industries Registration Certifi- cate, Essentiality Cert/ficate and Import Licence obtained by false representations-Prosecution-Conviction by Trial Court-High Court re- C •~ appreciating evidence and finding that the only conclusion possible was guilt of the accused which was proved beyond reasonable doubt-Reversal of acquittal and conviction of accused by High court-Held High Court was juStified in its conclusion. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 360--Probation. D Accused -Conviction under sections 420 and 120-B, !PC-Several achievements in the industrial .field made by accused-Held in the cir- cumstances benefit of probation should be extended. The appellant, (first accused), a former Inspector of Indus- tries, alongwith an Inspector of Industries, (second accused), was prosecuted under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC, sections 5(1) (b) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the ground that both the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and acting in concert, the first accused obtained the Small Scale Industries Registration Certificate for additional lines of manufac- ture, Essentiality Certificate and Import Licences on false represen- tations while the second accused enabled him to obtain the same by his false recommendations. The Trial Court acquitted both of them on all the charges. The State filed an appeal before the High Court which on re-appreciation of evidence held that the prosecution has established conspiracy beyond doubt and that only one conclusion was possible on the evidence that the accused are guilty of all the charges. Accordingly it set aside the acquittal and convicted both · the accused on all the counts and sentenced the appellant to impris- onment fe~ two years under section 120-B, and for two years under section. 420 JPC. E F G In appeal to th is Court it was contended on behalf of the H 249 250 Sl}PREME COURT REPORTS [I 992] I S.C.R. A appellant-accused that: (i) the High Court erred in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court; and (ii) the benefit of probation under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be extended to the appellant. B c D Disposing the appeal, this Court, HELD: The High Court was right in coming to ilte conclusion that the guilt against the appellant was established beyond doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence awarded by the High Court is upheld. [251 G 253 BJ The occurrence relateSi.to .the period between February, 1967 and February, 1969. The' Trial Court acquitted the appellant while High Courtrl!Verse4 the acquittal· and convicted them. This Court granted bail to the appellant in 1980. Since then the' appellant h;u several achievements to his credit in the industrial field. Therefore, this 'is a fit case where benefit of probation under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should ·be extended to the appel- lant. [253 C-E] · \ CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDIC't,ION: Criminal. Appeal No. 330 of 1980. E From the Judgmenrand Order dated 3.4.1980 of the Madras High F G H Court in Crl. Appeal No. 360of1974. Hardev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Appellants. V.C. Mahajan, B. Parthasartbi and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Re- spondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. The appellant N.M. Parthasarathy is the sole proprietor of a finn called "Elector-technik". He was formerly working as Inspector of hidustries. He.along with an Inspector of Industries, was prosecuted on the allegations that between February, 1967 and February, 1969 they entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain Small Scale Indus- tries Registration Certificate for additional lines of manufacture, Essenti- ality Certificate and import licences on false representations made to the Director of Industries, Assistant Director of Industries, Joint Chief Con- troller of Imports/Exports and the Iron and Steel Controller. The first PARTHASARATHY v. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 251 charge framed against both of them wrui for an offence of conspiracy A punishable under section 120-B read with section 420 !PC and section 5(1) (b) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Charges 2, 4 and 6 framed against hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.