LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus JASWANTLAL NATHALAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE STATE OF (;li.J \UAT
JASWA!\TL\L :\ATllAl.AL
Nm·ember 23, 1967
IS. M. SIKRI, J. M. SllELAT A'.'D K. s. HEGDE. .IJ.]
Indian J>e11ai Code, 1860, s. 409--Government .relling ce111ent 10 con-
tractor .a1;ail1.\·~ allotment for spec;fic construction lvork-re.\·po11dtnt tak-
ing delivrry 011 behalf of
co111ractor
Gild
di\,erting
.ron11~ quantity-
H·hether thert• \\'l1S enrru.H111rnt to hiu1-if breach of trt1.,·r cumn1itttd.
The appellant State Government gave on a con1r;ict to a contractor
the work of construction of a building. The contractor ln lurn izave that
\\'Ork on suh-c0ntract to a firm K & Co.
and the respondent: \lo·as Jookiniz
after the cons1ruc1ion \Vork on behalf of the firm.
Upon an ~· :Jlication
made to the l)eputy Engineer. A!imcdabad, the contractor w.is allotted
100 ba.Jt,S of cement for construction work. This cement
was
sold
by
the Governmenl to the conlrac1or :ind Jclivcrcd to the respondent for
and on beho11r of the contractor.
After taking deliverv of 1hc cement
1he respandcnl delivered "Only part of it to the conslruc1ion ~i1c and the
h:ilance was diverted and 5tocked on accounl of K: & Co.
On thC"C
facts and. the appel1ant's con1plain1. the respondent \t:as nrosc-cuteJ for
hreach of tru't unJer "· 4fl9 of rhc Indian Penal Code. ·rhc rcs110ndcnl's
cao.;,e wa!:> that in an1icipa1ion of allolment of cement 10
1h~ contractor.
K & C'-0. had utilized son1e of t~cir O\\'O cement and therefore thL' cement
diverted to th.:111 \\ra" on ;1ccount of a auar.tily alrc;idv uc;cd h\" them for
1he contractor.
·nie Trial Court d.isbclieved rhi" \'cr.:.i0n :lnd l"l111victed
!he rec;pondcnl.
The
J~i1!h ('ourt. hO\\·cvcr. alkn\t:J ;1n .1t1pl'.d ;ind ~c
uuined the respondent.
On appeal to thi~ C'ourt
HELD : Dismi!\sin)! 1he appeal : Th~ pro ... ccutior. hJL! f.1!11.:J 10 prove
cntrusiment to 1he rc-.pcndent.
The expression "enlrustmcnt" carries v.·ith it the implic;ilil)O that the
person handin~ over anv propcrtv or on \\·hose hchJlf thai
propcrtv is
handed over to another. continues t0 he it" owner.
Fur1her thf: person
h;i.nding over the propenv must have confiJcnce in !he pcrian takin.'?, the
propertv so as to create n tiduci:tr\· relationship betv,,.ccn 1hcm.
A mere
trJns;1ction of sale cannot ;inH)UJll tl) <!rl L·ntn.hlmcn~. fJ 11 8--(-~
.i\Jthough the Go,ernmcnl h:ld sold the cement in
QUt"'St1011 to tho:-
contractor solely for !he purpose of f•cine. used in connection
~·ith the
construction work, that circumstance JiJ not make the transa:tion in
Qt:estion anythin.R other than a sale.
After the dclivcn• of th~ cement.
the Governn1ent had neither anv right nor dominion over it.
If the pur-
chaser or it~ reprcscntalive had failed to comphr \\ith the TN111ircmcnts
of anv Jaw relating to tie cement control. he ~hould havL~ hecn prose-
cuted for the same.
II could not he held that 1hcrc \V:t<: :in,· hrr;1ch of
trust. 141 I C-Dl ·
Ve/ji RaRhva;i.Patrl v. Statt' of Mahara.d11t·a. f1965J ~ SC.R
42Q:
Jaswantrai Mnflilal Akhane:v v. State of Ron1bay. [19~61 S.C.R 48'.l. 49R-
."OO: Sc.tvendra Natli M11l • ./1t•1ji v.
F:111peror.
1.L.R.
[1947]
I
Cal. 97,
rcfcrrec! to.
A
'
8
('
II
ti
A
B
c
'.
D
E
F
G
H
GU.JARAT v. JASWANTLAL (Hegde, J.)
409
The Ki11g v. Grubb. I 1915] 2 K.B. 683, held in applicable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:' Criminal Appeal No.
93 of J 965.
Appeal by special leaye from the judgment and order dated
June 19. 1964 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
759 of 1963.
R. H. Dhebar. for the appellant.
N. N. Keswani. for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hcgdc, J.
The State of Gujarat has tiled this appeal, by special
leave against the order of acquittal made by the High Court of
Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 759/63 on its file.
The respon-
dent herein was convicted for an offence under s. 409 IPC by the
city magistrate. 7th court, Ahmedabad, and sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.
in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months more.
The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The Gov-
ernment of Gujarat gave on contract to Bharat Sewak
Samai
(Gujarat) the work of construction of a building for the govern-
ment litho-printing press.
From Exh. 20 it appears that the BSS
in its turn p:ave that work on sub-contract to a firn1 known as M/s.
Kaushik & Co .. though it was sought to make
out that M/s.
KExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.