S. L. GOSWAMI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 04-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

948 
S. L. GOSWAMI 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
January 4, 1972 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.J 
Evidence-Burrfen of Proof in 
crin1inal cc.:se-ProJ'ecution 
must es-
tablish ingredients of offence before burden shifts ti accused-Accused's 
burden discharged if reasonable doubt created against prosecution cau. 
The appellant was Professor and Head of the Department of Phar-
macology and Therapeutics ·in the Medical College Jabalpur. In connec-
tion with a reseai:ch project to be carried out by him in collaboration with 
the Atomic Energy Commision a Doutle Distillation Apparatus was pur-
chased from Messrs S. K. Biswas and Co. Calcutta for Rs. 450/ - in 
September 1964.. In 1965 the Indian Council of Medical Research en-
trusted him with another research project for which be required a Double 
Distillation apparatus of 10 litres capacity. An order for the supply 
of the same was placed with Messrs Goverdhandas Desai P..t. Ltd. Bombav. 
They were asked to send their acceptance and bills in triplicate imme-
diately. 
Messrs Goverdhandas aforesaid sent their acceptance and bills 
in triplicate for Rs. 969-10. A draft for that sum was issued by the Ac-
counts offirer Indian 
Council of 
Medical 
Research 
in 
favour 
of 
Messrs Goverdhandas and was received by the appellant on April 12, 
1965. · The appellant thereafter wrote to Messrs Goverdhandas that he 
did not w~nt the apparatus as shown in the sketch shown by them but 
wanted it according to the orignal order placed by him. 
Messrs Gover-
dbandas replied expressing their inability to supply the same. In May 
1965 the appellant happened to be in Bombay. He asked Messrs Go-
verdhandas to accept the draft for Rs. 969 in their favopr and to issue a 
bearer cheque for the same amount to him so that he could purchase 
the apparatus required by him in Bombay. A 
receipt for 
the draf. 
was given to the appellant bv Messrs Goverdhandas an<l he issued a receipt 
for the cheque to them. The appellant was subsequently tried for mis-
appropriation of the amount. According to the prosecution he did not 
purchase any apparatus in Bombay and continued to use the apparatus 
earlier purchased from Calcutta. According to the appellant however. he 
contracted one Rasikl al Shah (DW3) a partner of Messrs Scientific Sales 
Syndicate who after a telephonic conversation wrote to him a letter intro-
ducing one D'Souza who could supply the apparatus to the appellant. 
The appellant claimed that he purchased the apparatus from D'Souza. 
obtained a receipt for the amount paid and brought the apparatus to 
Jabalpur and used it in ,his laboratory. The bill given to the appellant 
by D'SouZ'3 bore the nam'.:: of M.B. Corporation. 
An 'apparatus Art. 
A 
\\'a5 seized by the police fron1 the appellant's laboratory which accordin,q 
to the prosecution was the apparatus purchased in 1964 but according t(i 
the appellant was the one purchased in Bombay. The appellant produced 
before the investigating officer the letter written by Rasiklal Shah as well 
as other documents 
connected, 
according to him, with the 
purcha«.e. 
The trial court convicted the appellant of offences under ss. 409 and 42il 
I.P.C. ands. 5(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act. The High Cq11n 
dismissed his appeal. This Court .in appeal by special leave, 
HELD · The onus of provinr all the ingredients of an offence is 
always upo~ the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. 
It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. 
E:·· .. 
in casc·s wh~re the defence of the accused docs not appesr to be c,red1b1c 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ll 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
s. L. GOSWAMI v. M.P. STATE (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 
94 9 
or is palpably false that burden does not become any the. less. It is only 
when this burden is discharged that ·;t will be for the accused to explain 
or controyert the essential elements in the prosecution case \vhich would 
negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage 
to prove something whic!J has to be eliminated bv the prosecution to 
establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and 
even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish 
his plea, the standard of proof is not the saine as that which rests upon 
the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence 
on his behalf probabilises the plea he will be entitled to the benefit o' 
reasonabl~ doubt. [954 C-E] 
Jn the present case t

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