KANBI RAMJI DUNGAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge Junagadh passed on June 12 1970 convicting the appellant Kanbi Ramji Dungar for offences under sec. 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of each offence. It is directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant who was at the material time holding the office of the President of a Co-operative Society known as Mota-Kotda Agricultural Multipurpose Co-Operative Society hereinafter referred to as the Society was tried alongwith accused No 2 Panachand Sundarji a paid Secretary of the said Society. The charge was under sec. 408 read with sec. 34. And in the alternative a charge under sec. 409 was framed against each of the two accused. Both of them were also charged with an offence under sec. 477A read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Secretary-accused No. 2 Panachand Sundarji. The appellant (the then President of the Society) was acquitted in regard to the charge of misappropriation and falsification of accounts in respect of all the items excepting an item of Rs. 500/and an item of Rs. 50/In regard to these two items the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. As the appellant has been acquitted in regard to the charge of having misappropriated a number of items and there is no appeal against the order of acquittal it is not necessary to consider the prosecution case in that behalf and to discuss the evidence pertaining thereto. For the present purposes we are concerned with two items-first of Rs. 50/and the second of Rs. 500.

(3.) Can the president of a co-operative Society it has been argued in the form of a question be said to be an officer of the society and can it be said that he has falsified any book or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer so as to constitute an offence under sec. 477A of the Indian Penal Code ? In the first place (such is the reasoning) the appellant cannot be said to be a clerk officer or servant of the Society. And secondly it cannot be said that he has falsified any book in the possession of his employer. On these premises it is urged that the appellant will not fall within the category of persons contemplated by sec. 477A. It is contended that only a paid employee or a servant can be convicted for falsification of accounts under sec. 477A. I am unable to accede to this argument. The expression officer has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary Fourth Edition as the incumbent of an office or a person who is lawfully invested with an office. The appellant was an incumbent of the office of President of the Society. And as he was lawfully invested with the said office he can certainly be said to be an officer. It is no doubt true that sec. 477A refers to falsification of an entry in any book belonging to the employer of such officer. The expression employer however need not be construed in the truncated sense of a master as has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The expression employer does not necessarily refer to a person who engages an employee. It does not necessarily and invariably connote the relationship of master and servant. The expression employ has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary Fourth Edition as being referable to commission and entrust with the management of ones affairs. It is therefore clear that one who is entrusted with the affairs relating to the management of a Co-operative Society under the law can be said to be an officer who is employed by the Society for the management of the affairs of the Society. If therefore such an officer falsifies any books of account of the Society it can be said that the falsification relates to books belonging to his employer.