LexTULSI RAM versus STATE OF U. P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
196! se1mn1Ja, 27. 3!2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP, TULSI RAM v. STATE OF U. P. u~.rER IMAM, K. suBBA RAo, N. R~JAGOP.4.LA AYYANGAR and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Conspiracy-Sanction-Letter of Under &cretary stating Governor has grrznted sanction-If sufficient- Pruumpfion as to official acta-Gheating--Dishonutly- Wro11j1- f11l gain-Whether wrongftil loss also necessary-Sentence-Red11c- tion of-Gode of G1·iminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), s. 196A-lndian Penal Code, 1860 (Act ][LV of 186~), s. J2~. The appellant• were tried and convicted for conspiracy to cheat certain banb. The pro1ecution had put on record a letter from the Under Secretry to Government which stated that the Governor had been pleased to grant sanction for the pro1ecution of the appellants. The sanction was not challeneed before the trial court or the High Court, but before the Supreme Court the appellants contended that no sanction as required bys. 196A, Code of Criminal Procedure was on record and that the docu- ment on record did not show on its face that the facts of the case had been considered by the Governor. The appellant further contended that for conviction for cheating the prosecution had to establish both that the appellants had caused wrongful gain to themselves and caused wrongful loss to the bank! and that as no wrongful loss to the banks had been established, the appellants could not be convicted of cheating or of con1piracy to cheat. Held, that the appellants were not entitled to raise the question of sanction for the first time in the Supreme Court as it required for its decision investigation of facts. The document on record '\Vas an official communic.1tio11 \vhich recited the fact that the Governor had granted the sanction. A presumption arose that the sanction had in fact been accorded. A further presumption arose that the official act of granting sanction to which reference was made in the communication had been regularly performed. The document on record prima facie satisfied the reqtiirements of s. J 96A. He/,d, further, that to establi5h that the accused had disho~ nestly induced another to part \\'ith property \vithin the lneaning of s. 420, Indian Penal Code, it \>\'as not lle'.cessary to prove both wrc>n:ful 'a.ii' and wrongful loss. Wrongful gain and wrongful 1 s.c.R. SUP:lt.BM:r COURT REPORTS 383 loss were two facets of the definition of di1honesty and it was enough to establish the existence of one of them. In the present case, the appellants had made wrongful gain to themselves by obtdning credits by unlawful means and even if no wrongful 1oss was caused to the banks, the appellants were guilty of cheating. Sanjiv Ratanappa Ronad v. Emperor, (1932) I. L. R, LVI Bom. 488, and Kotamraju Venkatarayudu v. Emptror, (1905) I. L. R. 28 Mad. 90, distinguished. The sentences of imprisonment imposed on four of the appellants were reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed on each on the grounds that no useful purpose would be served by sending these appellants to jail after a long interval of time, that these appellants were very young at the time of the commission of the offences and that they had acted under the influence of the dominating personality of the main accused. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 62 and 63 of 1958. Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 15, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 1332 and 1476 of 1954. A. N. 1r!i1Ua, B. B. Tawakley, J. P. Goyal, A. Banerji and K. P. Gupta, for the appellants. G. C. Jlfathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondents. 1962. September 27. The Judgme.nt of the Court was delivered by 1962 v. St•ta of ti. P. MuDHOLKAR, J.-These are appeals by a Mu.U..llm, J, certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad. They arise 0•1t of the same trial. The appellants in both the appeals except Chandrika Singh were convicted by the Second Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur, of offences under s. 4 71, Indian Penal Code read with ss. 467 and 468, I.P.C. and sentenced variously. Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal and Babu Lal were each convicted of offences under s. 417 read with s. 420 and Moti Lal of offences under s. 417, I.P.C. and Lachhimi Narain of offences under s. 420, I.P.C. Separate sentences were awarded to each of them in respect of these olfences. All the six appellants 1962 T""'i n- v. Sl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.