VASUDEO KULKARNI versus SURYAKANT BHATT & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 02-03-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 09 
VASUDEO KULKARNI 
V. 
SURYAKANT BHATT & ANR. 
March 2, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Practice and Procedure-Trial Court acquitted the accused-High Court-
When could reverse trial court's findings. 
The appellant was a lawyer, under whom the Complainant (first respondent) 
was a junior. The ap-pellant was engaged as counsel in certain cases 
by the 
complainant's father. The appellant submitted staten1eat of accounts 
to 
the 
complainant's father in respect of the sums spent by him. in the suits. After a 
lapse of three years the complainant filed a complaint against the appeJlant mak-
ing allegations under ss. 409, 468 and 474 I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted him 
holding that the prosecution had been launched after inordinate delay and that 
there was no clear and conclusive evidence of criminal intention and dishonest 
mental act on the ·appellant's part. The High Court, on appeal, set aside th~ 
acquittal holding that the appellant's explanation in regard to the discrepancies 
\Va~ not true and could not be accepted. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : There was no sufficient ground for the High Court to interfere with 
the acquittal in this case when the reasons given by the trial Court were weight)1 
and cogent and there was no compelling justification to take a contrary view. 
. 
(112 Fl 
The mere fact that certain amounts were in the hand.s of the appellant and 
the accounts submitted were incorrect would not lead to the conclusion that the 
appellant comm1tted criminal breach of trust. [111 F] 
In the instant case, the complainant was a junior of the appellant and he 
could himself easily find out the discrepancy in the accounts and could have 
drawn the appellant's attention to it. · The complainant's father did not autho-
ri!:>e him to file the complaint nor was he examined to corroborate the com-
plainant. Secondly, in a notice issued to the appellant by the 
complainanfs 
father the latter did not attribute any dishonest intention or criminal intent on 
farmer's part. The· High Court was wrong in holdin.2 the charge as proved and 
in reversing the order of the trial Court. [111 G; 112 CJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 
1972. 
(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. 292/70). 
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 Panjwani and H. S. Parihar, for respondent No. 2; 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GOSWAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh convicting the appel-
lant under section 409, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to one 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ll 977l 3 s.c.R. 
A 
year's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of _Rs. 250/-, i1: default ~ur
ther rigorous imprisonment for three months, m appea:l a~amst acqmttal 
at the instance of the complainant (first respondent herem). 
The appellant is a senior lawyer of 25 years' standing in Indore and 
the complainant was acting as his junior. The complainant's father, 
Dinubhai, was the senior partner of a firm of Chartered Accountant, 
B 
.M/s. Dinubhai & Co., with its registered office in Bombay and a branch 
office in Indore. 
The Indore office was looked after by the second 
partner, M. C. Mehta. It appears that the firm was dissolved on July 
5, 1960, when Mehta ceased to be a partner and Dinubhai appointed 
the appellant as counsel and attorney for filing suits and for recovering 
dues from various parties. Dinubhai filed a suit, being suit No. 13 of 
1962, for recovery of Rs. 12,500/- in the court of the Third Additional 
C 
District Judge, Indore, impleading M. C. Mehta and one Chandulal 
Shah as defendants in that suit. 
Although the suit was decreed, it 
appears there were two cross appeals against the decree in the High 
Court, one by Dinubhai and the other by Chandulal Shah. The appellant 
·"
was appearing for Dinubhai in both the appeals. 
He received some 
amounts in advance from Dinubhai and submitted a statement of 
account of Shri Dinubhai (Ex. P-1) dated February 9, 1965, wherein 
D 
two items, namely, Rs. 210/- and Rs. 110/- were mentioned as being 
towards "paper book charges" respectively on 21-4-1964 and 
22-9-1964. 
The entry on 22-9-1964 shows that the amount of 
Rs. llO/- is one of several ite
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.