VASUDEO KULKARNI versus SURYAKANT BHATT & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 02-03-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
102 
VASUDEO KULKARNI 
V. 
SURYAKANT BHATT & ANR. 
March"'I, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J 
Practice and Procedure-Trial Court acquirted the accused-High Court-
When could reverse the Trial Court's finding. 
The complainant's (the first respondent) father entru&ted certain civil suits 
to the appellant, who was a lawyer. The complainant was a junior under the 
appellant. In a complaint lodged with a Magistrate it was alleged 
that 
by 
making a false representation to him that he had deposited in the Court certain 
sum towards costs in the suit, the appellant had collected from him (the com~ 
plainant) some money. 
Later, in consequence of a como1omise between the 
parties the .appe11ant returned the sum to the complainant's father by a crossed 
cheque. 
Even so the complainant filed the complaint. The trial court found 
that it was a case of accounting between the parties and that being a matter of 
civil nature, acquitted the appellant. The High .Court on 
the 
other hand 
reversed the acquittal and convicted and sentenced him under s. 420 J.P.C~. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The High Court had no reason whatsoever in an appear against 
acquittal to interfere with the conclusion reached by th~ trial court, which is 
justified on the evidence. The High Court was clearly \vrong in spelling out 
dishonest intention on the part of the appe11ant, taking a view different fro1n 
that of the trial court. [106 E] 
(a) Although in an appeal against acquittal, the H.igh Court may reapprc. 
ciate fo1 itself the entire evidence and reach its own conclusion, it is well-settled 
that, when the conclusion is contrary to that of the trial court, the High Court 
has a further duty to satisfy itself that the grounds given by the trial court for 
acquittal are palpably wrong or manifestly erroneous. That, as 
an 
original 
court trying the case for the first time, the High Court would have entered a 
verdict of conviction, is not the test in an appeal against acquittal. This is not 
a case where it is even remotely possible to characterise the reasons for acquittal 
as palpably and unerringly shaky, in which case alone, there would be justifica-
tion for interference by the High Court. The reasons given by the lligh Court 
should be demonstrably cogent and weighty. 
[107 E; GJ 
(b) The High Court has failed to take count of the relationship between a 
client and a lawyer which is a chain of .mutual adjustments of accounts. A 
lawyer's account should be clear and clean and above suspicion of manipulatlou-, 
yet there may __ arise some omissions and commissions in the account which can-
not give rise to a criminal charge. 
[106 G] 
In the instant case, the complainant lodged the complaint even without the 
kno\vledge of his father who had already received the amount in dispute. The 
appellant's relationship with the complainant's father \Vas that of lawyer and a 
client and anything outstanding from one or the other party was a matter of 
accounting between them. The complainant had no part to play on his own and 
the prosecution of the appellant even without examining his father as a witness 
\Vas unauthorised and uncalled for. 
There was accounting between the parties 
and even the correspondence showed that there had been adjustments between 
them from time to time. 
That b~ing the position dishonest intention which is 
the principal ingredient of an offence under s. 420 is lacking in this case. 
[105 E&GJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE foRISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 
1972. 
, 
VASUDEO KULKARNI v. SURYAKANT BHATT (Goswami, J.) 
103 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
22-10-1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in Crl. 
A. No. 291 of 1970). 
R. L. Kohli, R. C. Kohli and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. 
M. K. Khan and S. K. Dhingra, for respondent No. 1. 
Ram Pa11jwa11i and H. S. Parihar, for respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
GoswAMI, J. The appellant, an advocate of 25 years' standing, was 
charged under section 420, Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted by 
the trial court holding the matter to be of civil nature. The High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh on appeal at the instance of the complainant (the 
C 
first respondent herein) set aside the acquittal and convicted the appel-
lant under section 420 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment 
for two years and to a fine of Rs, 600/-, in dafault further rig

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