DIN DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by one of the two persons on trial in six cases (numbers 352 and 355-59) before the M. M. Tikamgarh under Section 409, Penal Code, and Sections 409/109, Penal Code, praying that these trials might be quashed as an abuse of the process of the Court; he avers that he has been tried on a charge of abetting criminal breach of trust and acquitted. The same materials and evidence have been adduced here, though ostensibly the items of payments introduced in these cases are different from those in the first case. A co-accused, Chandra Bhan Bhatnagar, was convicted in that first case under Section 409, Penal Code, as the principal offender and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine. Though he has not made a similar application, whatever has been said by this applicant applies with great force, to him also.

(2.) THE questions for decision are, first-whether these cases come strictly within the term of Section 403, Criminal P. C. ; and secondly even if they do not, whether the High Court can interfere in exercise of the general powers under Section 561a, Criminal P. C. at this stage; the ground is that these six cases amount to abuse the process of Court.

(3.) THE present applicant was the Head Clerk, and Chandrabhan Bhatnagar was the Motor Licensing Assistant, in the office of the S. P. Tikamgarh, between October 1949 and July 1950. In those days the different fees payable by the owners of cars and stage carriages were paid in cash to the motor clerk. Sometime in July 1950, it was found that out of such receipts, a gross total of Rs. 3,800/- in round figures, received in small amounts from, a number of licensees and permit holders, had not been entered in the proper books or deposited into the treasury. These were either the, fees that were payable to government under the rules, out of which a gross sum of Rs. 3,163,/12/- had disappeared, or amounts which, not really payable, were still handed in by ignorant licensees. Out of these sums a gross total of Rs. 660/- had not been accounted for. For example many of them believed that they were liable to pay what was called the "road fee" as well as another small fee for the renewal of the registration. One of them would pay, let us say Rs. 28/- in all, Rs. 25/- as the road fee or registration fee which was really due and Rs. 3/- as renewal fee which was not. Whether the latter were inadvertent and mistaken payments, or whether they had been induced by false representations on the part of the assistants incharge is a question, the answer to which is of no consequence here. In fact, neither in the first case, nor in the present six ones was there a charge of cheating. In other words, the prosecution has proceeded throughout on the assumption that these extra payments were made and received under an honest misapprehension of the rules, and not on anybody's false representations.