SHREEKANTIAH RAMAYYA MUNIPALLI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same trial. The two appellants, Shreekantiah (accused 1 in the trial Court and the appellant in Appeal No. 89 of 1954) and Parasuram (accused 2 and the appellant in Appeal No. 90 of 1954) were tried with a third accused Dawson on a number of different charges centring round S. 409, Indian Penal Code:criminal breach of trust by a public servant. The trial was by jury and all three were found guilty of an offence under S. 409 read with S. 34. They were convicted and sentenced as under: Accused No. 1. Shreekantiah to one year and a fine of Rs. 500 with four months in default; Accused No. 2. Parasuram to two years and a fine of Rs. 500 with six months in default; and Accused No. 3. Dawson to six months and a fine of Rs. 200 with two months in default.

(2.) The appeal of accused 2 to the High Court was dismissed summarily on 25-8-1953 with the one word "dismissed". Accused 1 and 3 appealed separately. Their appeal was heard by another Bench and was admitted, and a reasoned judgment followed on 23-11-l953. This, to say the least, was, in the circumstances of this case, anomalous. The appeals arise out of the same trial and are from one judgment and relate to the same charge to the jury, and what is more they raise substantially the same points. This Court was constrained to express its disapproval of the summary rejections of appeals which raise issues of substance and importance. We draw attention to the remarks in -'Mushtak Hussein vs. State of Bombay', AIR 1953 SC 282. Those observations apply with even greater force in the present case.

(3.) The three accused are Government servants. At all material times, the first was the Officer Commanding the Military Engineering Stores Depot at Dehu Road near Poona. He was in over-all-charge. The second was under him as the officer in charge of the Receipts and Issue control section. The third worked directly under the second as the Assistant Stores Officer.