STATE AND Vs. LAKSHMI KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Kanpur under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a jury trial. Lakshmi Kant, the opposite -party, was prosecuted for an offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the jury was perverse and was such that no body of reasonable persons could have arrived at it. And he considered that it was necessary in the ends of justice that the case should be referred to this Court for orders.

(2.) IT was not disputed that Lakshmi Kant was employed as a servant in Firm Kalu Ram Manni Lal, and his duty was to make realisations on behalf of the firm, to cash cheques from the bank, and to pay sums to the constituents of the firm in accordance with the directions of the firm. It was further not disputed that on the 22nd of June, 1950, a cheque in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - was given to him by Firm Kalu Ram Manni Lal for encashment at the Hindustan Commercial Bank, Kanpur, with direction that the amount in question may be paid on the same day to Firm Kalyan Mal Budhoo Lal. It was admitted by the accused that the cheque had been cashed on that very date. It was further admitted by him that he was unable to pay the amount to Firm Kalyan Mal Budhoo Lal, or to return the money back to Firm Kalu Ram Manni Lal. His contention was that he had been pick -pocketed on the way and was deprived of the entire amount and on that account he could not pay the money to the Firm. His contention further was that soon after the occurrence he went to the shop of Kali Ram Manni Lal to report the matter but he could not find the proprietors there and he therefore, communicated the information to Kashi Nath, the Munim of the Firm, who threatened to make him over to the police and on that account he left the place and disappeared until he surrendered himself on the 18th of December, 1950.

(3.) BEFORE the Privy Council decision in Ram Anugrah Singh v. Emperor, A.W.R. 1946 PC 115 there used to be difference of opinion amongst the various High Courts in India as to the sanctity to be attached to the verdict of a jury which has not been accepted by the Sessions Judge in a jury trial. One line of cases was to the effect that once the verdict of the jury was not accepted by the Sessions Judge and he made the reference to the High Court under Section 307, Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court was absolutely free and untrammelled by the opinion of the jury to come to its own conclusion on facts and to decide the case accordingly. The other view was that even though the High Court has power to decide according to its own views, this power should be exercised only when the verdict of the jury is found to be perverse, or, in other words, when the High Court considers that upon the evidence no reasonable body of men could have reached the conclusion arrived at by the jury. It was also said that the High Court could not interfere unless the verdict was manifestly wrong or clearly against the weight of evidence. The Privy Council set at rest the controversy in the case of Ram Anugrah Singh v. Emperor, A.W.R. 1946 PC 115.