SEVANTILAL GAGALDAS DOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these Revision Applications came to be prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 142 of 1982 for the offences punishable under Secs. 409 and 465 read with Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'). The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tharad (for short 'the trial Court') by judgment and order dated 30-11-1983 convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions of the Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000.00 each, in default simple imprisonment for a period of two months in so far as the offences under Sec. 409 and Sec. 120-B of the Code are concerned and simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each, in default simple imprisonment for a period of two months in so far as offence under Sec. 465 of the Code is concerned. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Palanpur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 62, 64, 65 and 67 of 1983. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed all the four appeals and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 659 of 1984 is original accused No. 1 - Mr. Ajesingbhai Gangaram Pandya. The petitioner in Criminal Revn. Application No. 638 of 1984 is original accused No. 2 - Mr. Kanajibhai Gokulbhai Parmar. The petitioner in Criminal Revn. Application No. 646 of 1984 is original accused No. 3 - Mr. Karmanbhai Revabhai Parmar and petitioner in Criminal Revn. Application No. 631 of 1984 is original accused No. 4 - Mr. Sevantilal Gagaldas Doshi. The parties have been referred to as the respective accused in the trial Court. After the rule was issued at the admission, the matters came up for final hearing before this Court.

(2.) I have heard learned Advocates for the parties and learned A.P.Ps. who have appeared in these petitions. Facts of the case :-

(3.) The facts of the case may be recapitulated from the appellate Court's judgment. One Mr. Mukundlal Gokaldas Mehta, the complainant before the trial Court was Mamlatdar and District Supply Mamlatdar of Gujarat Civil Supply Corporation at Palanpur for a period of about one and half year from before lodging of the complaint by him. According to his complaint Civil Supply Corporation came into existence from 1-11-1980, prior to which Government Civil Supply Department handled and managed supplies of essential commodities to the fair price shops. After the Civil Supply Corporation came into existence certain Government employees were deputed to the Corporation. Accordingly, the accused No. 1 was entrusted the work of Godown Manager before two years of the complaint, at Tharad. The accused No. 2 was serving as a Godown Keeper before one and half year at Tharad. The accused No. 3 was inducted as Godown Clerk after 1-11-1980. All the three happened to be Government servants and they were deputed to the Civil Supply Corporation at Tharad. The accused No. 4 ran fair price shop at Tharad for the last about 10 to 12 years before the date of the complaint. He had to take the cereals, oil, etc. from the godown of the Civil Supply Corporation. The office of the Godown Manager was located in the godown itself and the accused persons were remaining in contact of one another constantly. In May 1981 the Government decided to sell pamolin oil (edible oil) to the fair price shops and for that purpose the sealed pamolin tins were allotted to the Corporation godown from where the essential commodities were supplied to the fair price shop owners, who were required to obtain permit from the Mamlatdar. The shop-keepers were to deposit the price of essential commodites in the bank through the requisite challans. The Godown Manager used to give the quantity of commodities to the shop-keepers according to the quantity mentioned in the permit. He had, therefore, to write in the various stock registers as to how much quantity of essential commodities was issued to particular shop-keeper and the signature of the shop-keeper was also obtained in the relevant register. This was the routine procedure of the working in the godown. In or around July 1981 all the accused conspired to lift or remove the pamolin oil tins secretly and hatched a plan of selling the pamolin oil. They accordingly stealthily removed pamolin oil tins and sold to accused No. 4 at the rate of Rs. 130.00 per tin pursuant to such conspiracy. The accused No. 4 had the discretion to sell the tins at a price favourable to him and the other three accused were to share the price of the tin sold at Rs. 130.00 per tin to accused No. 4. They also conspired that whatever number of tins were sold by them the same number of empty tins were to be replaced in the godown so that the secret dealing could hardly be suspected. They also conspired to show such empty tins as the tins which had leakage. The accused No. 4 agreed to supply such tins. As a result of this conspiracy, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 removed 17 pamolin tins in July 1981 and disposed them of secretly. Thereafter, 30 tins were also removed by them. In the same way on or about 15-8-1981 70 tins were removed and then on 16-8-1981 60 tins were removed. The accused persons removed in all 199 pamolin oil tins in pursuance of the conspiracy as aforesaid and thereby they obtained wrongful gain in the sum of Rs. 25,870.00 and the accused No. 4 disposed of the said tins by getting better price. The controlled rate amount of all these tins, according to the complainant, would be Rs. 26,560.68. The accused No. 4 supplied the empty tins for showing replacement and the other accused placed them in the godown in such manner that nobody would doubt their secret dealings. The empty tins were replaced with a view to advance an explanation that the tins were showing heavy leakage. However, all the sealed lids on the upper portion of the tins were not intact and were removed.