TMI Blog1959 (5) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the Tata Iron Steel Co., Tatanagar, under Railway Receipt No. 039967 dated August 12, 1950. This consignment of goods was taken delivery of on October 2, 1950 at the Lahori Gate Depot. The consignment had been lying at the Railway depot for a considerable time and the Central Tractor Organisation was, before taking the delivery, making efforts to have the wharfage and demurrage charges reduced but it only succeeded in getting a reduction of ₹ 100. The appellant paid ₹ 2,332-4-0 for demurrage by means of credit notes P. N. and P. 0. on October 2, and on the following day he paid a further sum of ₹ 57-3-0 by a credit note P. Q. The prosecution case was that this consignment never reached the Central Tractor Organisation and that the appellant had removed these goods and had misappropriated them. He was absent from work after October 4, 1950, on the alleged ground of illness but he was sent for on October 7, and appeared before the Director of Administration Mr. F. C. Gera and he gave an explanation that he (the appellant) had lost the Railway Receipt along with another Railway Receipt and blank credit notes which had been signed by the Petrol and Transport Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also tried to show that the goods were removed by Gurbachan Singh to Amar Singh's place from where certain iron and steel goods were recovered. Now these iron and steel goods do not tally with the goods which were received from Tatanagar under Railway Receipt No. 039967 and the goods seized from Amar Singh's place have not been shown to be of the Tata Iron Steel Co's manufacture. Therefore the case reduces itself to this that the appellant took delivery of the goods. These goods were removed-from the Lahori Gate Railway Depot by the appellant and they never reached the Central Tractor Organisation. The prosecution sought to connect the goods found at Amar Singh's place with the goods received, taken delivery of and removed by the appellant but they failed to do so because neither the identity of the goods is the same nor has Gurbachan Singh been produced to depose that it was the appellant who asked him to remove the goods for being taken to Amar Singh's place. In this view of the matter the question for decision is whether the case of the prosecution should be held to be proved that the appellant had misappropriated the goods. It emerges from the evidence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a particular case the accused had or had not mens area for the crime. So in cases of criminal breach of trust the failure to account for the money proved to have been received by the 'accused or giving a false account of its use is generally considered to be a strong circumstance against the accused. The offence under s. 5(1)(c) is the same as embezzlement, which in English law, is constituted when the property has been received by the accused for or in the name or on account of the master or employer of the accused and it is complete when the -servant fraudulently misappropriates that property. (Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 10, 3rd Edition, p. 787) In Larnier v. Rex (1914) A.C. 221) the offence of embezzlement was described as a wilful appropriation by the accused of the property of another. A court of Justice, it was said in that case cannot reach the conclusion that ,the crime has been committed unless it be a just result of the evidence that the accused in what was done or omitted by him was moved by the guilty mind. So the essence of the offence with which the appellant was charged is that after the possession of the property of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ury as follows : The circumstances of the prisoner having quit- ted her place and gone off to Ireland is evidence from -which you may infer that she intended to appropriate the money and if you think that she did so intend, she is guily of embezzlement . Again in Reg v. Lynch (1854 6 Cox. C.C. 445), Moore, J., said:- You have further the fact that, after getting the money, the prisoner absconded and did not come back till he was in custody. You may infer that he intended to appropriate this money, and if so, he is guilty of embezzlement. The appllent's counsel relied on certain observations in certain decided cases which, according to his submission, support his contention that the prosecution has to prove not only receipt of goods by the accused but also to prove that he converted them to his own use and did not apply them to the purpose for which he received them. He referred to Ghulam Haider v. Emperor(AI.R. 1938 Lah. 534) ;In re Ramakkal Others (A.I.R. 1938 Mad.172); Bolai Chandra Khara v. Bishnu Bejoy Srimani (A.I.R. 1934 Cal. 425) Bhikchand v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1934 Sindh 22) ;Pritchard v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1928 Lah 382). So broadly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
