LexSHIV PRASAD CHUNILAL JAIN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19M Ba1ant Kumar v. llark RoWng Mills Gaiendragadkar c. J. 1964 February 26 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS No. 1 in all the three appeals were not entitled to curtail the benefits provided to the appellants by them and that the said benefits were not similar either qualitatively or quan- titatively to the benefits under the Scheme which had been brought into force under the Act. The High Court has held that the question as to whether the notices and circulars issued by respondent No. 1 were invalid, could not be considered under Art. 226 of the Constitution; that is a matter which can be appropriately raised in the form of a dispute by the appellants under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is true that the powers conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 are very wide, but it is not suggested by Mr. Chatterjee that even these powers can take in within their sweep industrial disputes of the kind which this contention seeks to raise. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contention, we would contirm the finding of the High Court that the proper remedy which is available to the appellants to ventilate their grievances in respect of the said notices and circulars is to take recourse to s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, or seek relief, if possible, under sections 74 and 75 of the Act. The result is, the appeals fail and are dismiBsed. There would be no order as to costs. A ppea/s dismissed. SHIV PRASAD CHUNILAL JAIN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) Criminal Trial-Whether the person must be physically present at the 1.1ctual commission of the crime-Acts done by several person.t in 1u11,'1erance of common intention-Essence of-lndia11 Penal Code, !KllO ( 4S of 1860), •· 34. In a trial by jury the appellants were jointly charged along witlt accused No. 1 with an offence punishable under ss. 471 and 467 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first charge was that in 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 921 19M Shiv Prasad Chunilal v. furtherance of their common intention to cheat the railway administra- tion, accused No. 1 had fraudulently or dishonestly used the forge'd railway receipt. The sl.!cond ch· .. rge v.:as framed in the alternative. Firstly it charged all the .accused under s. 467 read with s. 34 l.P.C. on account of accused No. I having forged the bill portion. In the alter- native, accused No. 1 was charged under s. 467 I.P.C. and the appellant.~ were charged under s. 467 read with s. 109 I.P.C. for having abetted accused No. 1 in the ..:ommission of that offence. Similarly charges ~los. 3 to 6 were framed in the alternative. The jury returned a unani- n1ous verdict of guilty against all the accused for the various offencrs read with s. 34 I.P.C. The verdict of the jury was not recorded with respect to the five alternative charges against accused No. 1 regarding substantive offences and against appellants with respect to various offences read with s. 109 I.P.C. The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and convicteO them of the various offences read with s. 34 J.P.C. Their appeals to the High Court also failed. On appeal by Special Leave the appellants mainly contended that the learned Sessions Judge misdirected the jury with respect to the requirements of s. 34 T.P .C. tt was urged that the various offences were actually committed by accused No. l, that the appellants were not present when accused t.J o. 1 presented the forged railway receipts, did other criminal acts and took Uelivery of the goods and that therefore even if they had agreed V1ith accused No. I for the cheating of the railway by obtaining the ioods dishonestly by presenting the forged receipt. they might have a.betted the commission of the various offences, but could not be guilty of those offences with the aid of s. 34 J.P.C. whose provisions do not 1.pply in the circumstances of the case. For the applicability of s. 34 against an accused, it is necessary that that accused had actually parti- icipated in the commission of the crime either by doing something which forms part of the criminal act or by at least doing something which 'Vfould indicate that be was a participant in the commission of that criminal act at the time it was committed. Stai. of MaM- rashtra Held: In the present case, accused No. 1 alone did the various acts which constituted the offences of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.