NARENDRA PRATAP NARAIN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 03-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
A 
NARENDRA PRATAP NARAIN SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
APRIL 3, 1991 
"B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
REDDY JJ.] 
Constitution oflndia, 1950: Article 136--Concurrent findings of 
fact-interference oilly in exceptional circu1nstances--1''indings perR 
verse, pre1ermitting' manifest errors and glaring injirmi1ies-Interfe-
>-
'C rence-'-Justified. 
to 
Indian Penal· Code, 1860: Sections 405, 409 467 and 471-
Criminal · breach ·of crust· and misappropriation-Government seed 
'store-Established practice· of credit sales to village level workers-
' Government circulars prohibiting such sales~Jssued from time to 
'time-"Yet practice continued-'-Persons in charge followed the estab-
lished practice-Whether' committed any offence and liable to be 
'punished. 
During 196<ki5 the first appellant was incharge of a seed store attacheil 
to a Block DevelopmenfOffice. The seed store was catering to the needs 
IE Of cultivators. The fil'Sl'appellant was charged with an offence of breach 
of trust, punishable ·mider Section '409'IPC on the allegation' that he 
pt'epared' forged bills' to the tune of Rs:1591.04 in the names of some 
village level workers'as if they were supplied certain articles on credit in 
disregard of the Government's instructions prohibiting credit sale. 
IF 
Liller ,'the Secottd'appellant fuok charge Of the seed store relieving 
·the first appellant.'iie"was ~!so charged with the· offence of breach of 
· trust under Seetion·'409 IPC in tespect of certain articles and misap-
propi-iation ilf a suni Rs.450.28. 
111·&ddiWni to the charges under section 409 lPC,' both the appel-
1 G l tants were also eharged With offenc~s punishable under sections 467 an'd 
'471 !Pc. 
y 
Before the Trial Court; the first appellant pleaded that the bills 
were genuine and that the materials were actually supplied to the Yillage 
level workers on credit. He denied the charges of defalcation and also 
H making bogus entries in the records. The second appellant disputed the 
'88 
N.P.N. SINGH,v. STA'.fE OF U.P. 
charge of misappropriation and staf~d that he received P~fl,payme11t .i'?P 
A . 
respect of the bill in question and, had. deposited· the. s,aid amount ii] 
Government treasury. 
The Trial Court convicted, both the appe!Ja11ts a11~:Se11te'l~ed them , 
to undergo various t~rms of. imprisonmenUor•'lff"'1S!'J' ·'!'Ider, Sections) 
467 and 471 IPC as also a l'i11e of. Rs.500• for tl)e offepce. u11der. secti\)n1 B 1 
409IPC. 
. 
On appeal, the High Court set aside tl)e conviction of the app,el. 
Iants under ~ections 467. and 471 IPC, and. '!Ph~ld. th~ conviction unci~r, 
section 409 IPC; but reduced. the fme to R&,250. T.he Respo11deot-Sta}e. 
has not preferred any appeal. 
In the present appeals, the appellaIJts, cha1Jenged1 the_ le)lali,ty. of 
their conviction under section. 409 we. 
. 
c 
The first appellant contend.ed that the lo,11g e1•tablisl)ed practjce of r 
credit sale was continuing• till.1969-70 despite Gpvernme_lit cir~uiai-s,to., D 1 
stop the practice 811d so in 1965, he was not a~· fault in mal)il'g credit 
sales. It was also contended that there was np. motive1illJ )\is part to, 
misappropriate the goods. The second appeQant coote11ded that he 
issued only receipts and realised the moneya~.d in th~. absence of any 
conspiracy having been proved, he was not go.illy of any misappropria-
tion of money. 
· 
. 
· · 
. 
Allowing the appeals, tl)is Court, 
HELD: 1. The long established practice of crec\it sale. of sei;dj, 
fertilisers, pesticides etc. from the Government Agricylt11re s.,.d_S~res, 
continued for some time, at least till the fast circular 1"sued O!J..26.7.6~, 
The repeated issuance of the circulars indicate t'1at inspitlj of these, 
circulars, the practice of credit sale was in vogue. -:\ close scr'!~Y of the 
evidence and records show that the superior officers, jnspite of the 
circulars, did not take a very serious view of the credit s.•'• to th!', 
cultivators. In fact, by· circular dated 2.8.67, the Direct11r of Agri-
culture while impressing the prohibition of credit sale, gave OIJIY a war'.'-
ing that the erring officials would be held 'personally responsi.ble to pay 
the outstanding amount'. The ap:>ellants could not be mulcted with the 
criminality of breach of trust for following the established practice 11f. 
credit sale through village level workers. [lCiOG-H; lOIA-1!] 
G . . . 
2. Since the High Court has set aside the conviction of the appel-
H 
·- _. 
' 
.. 
90 
SUPREME COU

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