LexRAMACHANDRA NARASIMHA KULKARNI versus STATE OF MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1964 .Aprill 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] RA.MACHANDRA NARASIMHA KULKARNI v . STATE OF MYSORE [K. SUBBA RAO, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Post Offices Act-WilfU:lly detaining postJal articles--The meaning of the exvression "wilful"-Mere negligence or in- advertance not enougl>-Detention must be for a purpose- Post Offices Act, 1898 (VI of 1898) s. 53. The appellant was a registration clerk in a post office. He was prosecuted on the allegation that he committed theft of a half of a ten rupee note contained in a registered letter along with a petition for exchanging it, for altering the petitic,n and for detaining the registered letter for a day with the purpose of committlng the theft and making the alteration. He was charged under Ss. 52, 53 and 54 respectively of the Post Offices Act, 1898. The Sessions Judge who tried the case found him not guilty of the offence under s. 52 but guilty under Ss. 53 and 55. On appeal to the High Court he was found not to be guilty of the offence under s. 55; the conviction under s. 53 was main- tained. Thereupon he appealed to this Court. It was contended by the appellant before this Court that as- suming that he detained the envelope he cannot be said to have detained it "wilfully", unless it is shown that he had some pur- pose in doing it and since the purpose alleged by the .Prosecu- tion has not been proved the appellant cannot be said to have committed the offence under s. 53. Held: per K. Subba Rao and K. C. Das Gupta, JJ. A review of the case law brings out clearly the guiding princi- ple that the meaning to be attached to the words "wilful' or "wilfully" has to be ascertained on a close examination of the scheme and nature of the legislation in which the words ap- pear and the context in which they are used. Re Young and Harston, 31 Ch. D. 174 Wheeler v. New Merton Board Mills, [1933] (2) K.B. 669 United States of America v. Harry Murdock, 78 Law, Ed. 689, Hudson v. Official Liquidator, A.LR. 1929 All. -826, In re T. N. K. Govindarajulu Chetty, 19ol 2 S.T.C. 27 and In re Jayarama Chettiar, I.L.R. 1949, Mad. 121 re- ferred to. (ii) A comparison of the various sections of the Act shows that the legislature took a more serious view of the offence of wilful detention of postal articles than any of the offences in Ch. X and has, therefore, prescribed a comparatively heavy punishment. Hence it is reasonable to think that in s. 53 when the word "wilfully" was used the legislature also intended that the detention would be punishable only if made for some pur- pose. (iii) The prosecution alleged in the Jlresent case that the purpose was theft of the note but the existence of that pur- pose has not been established and detention was not deliberate and hence the appellant cannot be said to have detained the arti- .cle wilfully. Per Raghubar Dayal, J. (dissenting}-- The legislature where it intended to make the purpose behind an act an ingredient expressly stated so, as for example in s. 52. If the word "wilful" or "wilfully" is used in the Act as 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 607 a synonym for an act done deliberately and for some purpose, the expression wilful could have been used in the place of "for any purpose whatsoever". This the legislature did not do though it used that in s. 53. (ii) The mere act of detaining a postal article by any person other than a postal officer is made punishable with only fine under s. 67 and a higher punishment is provided under s. 53 be- cause the culprit is an officer of the post office who has opportu- nities to detain the, postal articles and who acts contrary to his duties. (iii) The expression "wilfully" in s. 53 means "intentionally and deliberately" and not "accidently" or 'lnegligently''. (iv) From the facts of the case it is proved that the appel- lant deliberately detained the registered letter. His intention and deliberation were directed towards the detaining of the registered Jetter and to the non-forwarding of it in due course with the mail that day. Every intentional and relevant act must be with some purpose or object. He, therefore obtained the letter wilfully and is guilty of the offence under s. 53. Taylor v. Verget>te (861) 30 L.J. Ex. 400, Reg. v. Senior (1899) 1 Q.B 283, Tamboli v. Great India Peninsular Railway Company, L.R. 55 I.A. 67, Wheeler v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd. [1933] 2 K.B. 669, Hudson v. Official Liquidator, A.LR., J.929 All
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.