BIRENDRA PRASAD LAHIRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants who are brothers and share-brokers and share dealers in the city of Banaras were convicted by a first class Magistrate of that District under Section 409, I. P. C. and were sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. They filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge of Banaras. Their conviction linger Section 409 I. P. C., was set aside and in lieu of it they were convicted under Section 403, I. P. C. Their sentence was, however, maintained, They have now come up in revision.

(2.) It appears that the applicants were given a sum of Rs. 9,538-8-0 by one Shri Parmath Nath Sanyal, grand-father of the complainant who is also a resident of Banaras, for the purchase of -one hundred shares of Dhemo Moin Collieries at Rs. 16-13-0 per sham on the 29th August 1951 for a sum of Rs. 1.681-4-0 200 shares of Indian Cables at Rs. 15-15-0 per share on the 25th October 1951 for Rs. 3,187-8-0, and 10 Imperial Bank Contributory Shares at Rs. 466-6-0 each on 18th November 1951 for Rs. 4,683-12-0. It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicants failed to deliver the share scrips and were putting off the complainant and his grandfather, and when on the 29th April 1953 they were threatened with criminal litigation they said that they were short of funds and had misappropriated the said shares by pledging them with their bankers and wanted time till the 7th May 1953 to deliver the same; and when on that date the complainant went to them for the share scrips they refused to deliver them.

(3.) The applicants denied that Rs. 9,533-8-0 had been given to them for the purchase of 100 shares of Dhemo Moin Collieries, 200 shares of Indian Cables and 10 Imperial Bank Contributory shares. They admitted that the order for the purchase of these shares along with others was placed, but they denied that the above amount was paid to them specifically for the purchase of the aforesaid shares; that Sri Parmath Nath Sanyal used to advance money in instalments towards his account and the aforesaid amount was also paid towards the running account and was credited in his account. They admitted that the shares had not been delivered but they denied that any demand was made from them or that they had embezzled by pledging them. They also admitted that they neither delivered the shares nor returned the money and the reason for it according to them was that the account had not been settled.