HARGUN SUNDER DAS GODEJA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four appellant in these three appeals by special leave were tried in the Court of the Special Judge for Greater Bombay on a charge of conspiracy punishable under S. 120-B, I. P. C. Accused No. 1 (Shiv Kumar Lokumal Bhatia) was a godown clerk; accused No. 2 (Hargun Sunderdas Godeja) was the Senior Godown Keeper and accused no. 3 (Hundraj Harchomal Mangtani) was the Godown Superintendent at the General Motors Godown at T-Shed, Sewri, Bombay, belonging to the Food Dept. of the Government of India, Accused No. 4 (Shankar Maruthi Phadtove) was a driver of Truck No. 2411. The allegation against them was that all these accused during the month of July, 1963 were parties to criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of 1060 bags of red wheat which were released from the ship S. S. Hudson on July 7, 1963 at Bombay for storing them in the G-M. 2 Godown at Sewri. In pursuance of this conspiracy, it was alleged they had dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated or converted to their own use 80 bags of red wheat out of 1060 bags released from the ship. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were also charged under Section 409 read with Section 34, I. P. C. Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 34, I. P. C., Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 34, I. P. C. and Section 477-A read with Section 34, I. P. C.

(2.) The learned Special Judge on a consideration of the evidence on the record held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the conspiracy on the part of all the four accused to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the 80 bags of red wheat. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were also held to have gained pecuniary advantage and further to have altered the records of the T Shed. Holding the offences to be serious in view of the general shortage of food grains in the country the court felt that the case called for deterrent sentences. Under S. 120-B I. P. C. all the accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were in addition held guilty under S. 409, I. P. C. read with S. 34, I. P. C. and under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 34, I. P. C., under Section 5 (2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 34, I. P. C. and also under S. 477-A read with S. 34, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years on each of these four counts, the sentences to be concurrent.

(3.) on appeal the High Court confirmed the order of the trial court as against accused No. 4 and dismissed his appeal. The conviction of accused No. 1 under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 34, I. P. C. was set aside. But his conviction and sentence under S. 120-B, I. P. C. and under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 34, I. P. C. as also under S. 477-A read with S. 34, I. P. C. was confirmed. His conviction under S. 409 read with S. 34, I. P. C. was altered to one under S. 409, I. P. C. but without altering the sentence. The convictions of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under S. 409, I. P. C. read with S. 34, I. P. C. as also under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 34, I. P. C. were set aside but their conviction and sentence under S. 120-B, I. P. C. and under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 34, I. P. C. was confirmed.