LexR. K. DALM.IA versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' - 1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS R. K. DALM.IA v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (S .K. D..\s, K. SuBBA RAo and RA<iHUBAR DAYAL. JJ.) 253 Criminal Trial-Transactions to divert money of Insurance Company to losses incurred by Chairman in share speculation- Chairman and Agent, if guilty of criminal breach of trust- Oharge, if legal-Confession before Investigator, if voluntary-- 'Agent'-''In the way of his busittess"--Meaning-Falsification of account-Conspiracy-Accomplice-Corroboration-Indian Penal Oode 1860 (XIV of 1860), ss. 120B, 409, 405, 477.A- Oode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 233-'- lnaurance Act, 1938 ( 4 of 1938), s. 33. Appellant Dalmia was the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Principal Officer of the Bharat Insurance com- pany and appellant Chokhani its agent in Bombay. Appdlant Vishnu Prasad, nephew of Chokhani, was the ne;minal owner of Bhagwati Trading Company but its business was entirely conducted by Chokhani. Gurha, the other appellant, was a Director of Bharat Union Agencies, a company dealing in for- ward transactions of speculation in sh~res, and owned for all practical purposes by Dalmia. This Company suffered heavy losses in its business during the period August, 1954, to Sep- tember, 1955. The prosecution case against the appellants in substance was that in order to provide funds for the payment of those losses in due time, they entered into a conspiracy, along with five others, to divert the funds of the Insurance company to the Union Agencies through the Bhagwati Trading Company and to cover up such unauthorised transfer of funds, the various steps for such transfer and the falsification of accounts of the Insurance Company and the Union Agencies and its allied concern and committed offences under s. 120B read with s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Dalmia made a confession before Mr. Annadhanam, a Chartered Accountant, who was appointed Investigator under s.33( I) of the Insurance Act, 1938, which was as follows:- · "I have misappropriated securities of the order of Rs. 2,20,00,000 of the Bharat Insur ince Company Ltd. I have lost this money in speculation." '"' .f;ril I. 1962 R. K. Da/mia v. Delhi Administration 254 SUPREME COURT REPORT8 [1963] "At any cost, I want to pay full amount by requesting by relatives or myself in the interest of the policy holders". The prosecution primarily depended upon the evidence of Raghunath Rai, the Secretary-cum-Accountant of the Insu- ranc: Company, and it was contended on behalf of the appel- lants that he was an accomplice. The Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants under s. 120B read with s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and fur- ther convicted Dalmia and Chokhani for substantive offences under s. 409, Chokhani under s. 477A read withs. I IO and Gurha under s. 477 A of the Indian Penal Code. He however acquitted the others. The High Court in sub,tance agreed with the findings of the Sessions Judge, except that it did not rely on the confes- sion of Dalmia. Held, that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction to try Chok- hani for the offence under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code, committed beyond its jurisdiction in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy with which he and the other co-accused were char• ged. Purusho1tam Das Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, [1962] 2 S. C.R. IOI, followed. The charge against Dalmia under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code was not hit by s. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The charge framed was not for four distinct offen- ces. It was really with respect to one offence though the mode of committing it was not precisely stated. Any objec- tion as to the vagueness of the charge on the score could not invalidate the trial since no prejudice haq been caused to the accused nor any contention raised to that effect. The word 'property' used in s. 405 of the Indian Penal Code could not be confined to movable property since the sec- tion itself did not so qualify it. The word 'property' 'Was much wider than the expression 'movable property' defined in s. 22 of the Code. The question whether a particular offence could be committed in respect of any property depended not on the meaning of the word 'property' but on whether that pro· perty could be subjected to that offence. 'Property' in a par- ticular section could, therefore, mean only such kind of pro· perty with respect to which that offence could be committed. The fonds of the Bharat Insurance
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.