N B PARMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein and one Pritipal Singh had been charged of offences punishable under Sections 120-8 and 401 of the IPC and also under Sections 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Special Judge, Margao, by his Judgment dated 28th January, 1986, acquitted the accused Pritipal Singh but was pleased to convict the appellant herein for offences punishable under Section 409 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (c) and 5(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) The prosecution case has been that Pritipal Singh was the Deputy Manager, acting as Divisional Manager, of the Marketing Division of the National Textile Corporation at Ahmedabad and the appellant was the Manager-in-Charge of the show room of the National Textile Corporation at Daman. Both Pritipal Singh and the appellant entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period commencing in April. 1979 and ending in April, 1980 with the object of misappropriating controlled cloth received at the show room of the National Textile Corporation at Daman from the Marketing Division, Ahmedabad, for sale to the public, and for the purpose of obtaining by corrupt means, pecuniary advantage of such misappropriation. It is further the case of the prosecution that the show room of the National Textile Corporation, Daman, comes under the Marketing Division of the National. Textile Corporation, Ahmedabad and the said show room is used to get controlled cloth from the said Marketing Division for sale to the public. The daily sale proceeds were required to be deposited within 24 hours in a non-operative account of the National Textile Corporation in the Dena Bank, Daman. The show room was also required to send a monthly statement of transactions made during the previous month to the Marketing Division at Ahmedabad, showing in detail the sales of cloth made during the respective month. During the year 1979-1980, controlled cloth was sent by the Marketing Division, Ahmedabad to the show room at Daman through 22 challans. Out of the said 22 consignments, 40 bales of controlled cloth were sent to Daman show room by the Marketing Division, Ahmedabad, through Rohini Enterprises. These consignments were not delivered at Daman on directions given by the appellant in conspiracy with the said Pritipal Singh and were instead taken delivery of at Vapi. The said 40 bales of cloth were booked to Narol, Ahmedabad, in consignments of 10 bales each, by the appellant under fictitious names of M/s. Bharat Textiles, Vapi, M/s. Vijay Textiles, Vapi, M/s. Rohini Textiles, Vapi, M/s. Narottam Textiles, Vapi, showing the consignee as self. The accused Pritipal Singh has met one Lalchand Dalal at Ahmedabad before the arrival of the said consignments in Daman and asked Dalal to sell the controlled cloth as per his instructions. Dalal managed to sell the said 40 bales of controlled cloth for a consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- which was paid by him to the accused Pritipal Singh after getting a commission of Rs. 800/- Thereafter, neither Pritipal Singh, nor the appellant paid the said amount to the National Textile Corporation and, as such, both of them obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt means. It is also the case of the prosecution that during the month of March, 1980, the show room of Daman purported to sell controlled cloth worth Rs. 40,169.65 p. and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy between the two accused, the appellant did not deposit the said amount in the account of the National Textile Corporation in Dena Bank, Daman. Also on 31st March, 1980, the show room of Daman ought to have been in possession of controlled cloth, worth about Rs. 26.935/- and not cloth worth only Rs. 6.210.54 p. Therefore, there was a misappropriation on account of the said criminal conspiracy, to the tune of Rs. 20,724.50 p. The total amount of misappropriation is of Rs. 60,894.15 p. but was later on paid back to the National Textil Corporation, Marketing Division, Ahmedabad in five installments all by deductions from the pay of the appellant.

(3.) The learned Special Judge discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution in detail and arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to establish the existence of a conspiracy between the appellant and Pritipal Singh. Therefore, he held that no case had been proved against the said Pritipal Singh and consequently acquitted him. However, as regards the appellant, the learned Judge held the view that the evidence on record was clearly showing that the aforesaid 40 bales of cloth had been despatched from the Marketing Division, Ahmedabad to Daman and that the appellant instead of receiving the said bales at Daman had directed the driver of the truck to unload the said bales in a godown at Vapi. The learned Judge also held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that there was a misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 20,724.50 p. as on 31st March, 1980 controlled cloth worth Rs. 26,935.04 p. was to be in the show room and on physical verification, cloth worth only Rs. 6,210.54 P. was found. On the basis of such evidence the learned Judge convicted the appellant, as already said, under section 409, I.P.C. and sections 5(1)(c) and 5 (1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.