NATHULAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 408, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a half and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of eight bales of cloth.

(2.) The prosecution case is that Rameshwar Lal (P. W. 2), who is a dealer in cloth, made over lour railway receipts to the petitioner, Nathu Lall, who is his servant, for taking delivery of 21 bales of cloth from the Dhanbad Railway station and to bring them to his shop at Patanagar, and for meeting the expenses of which Nathulal was paid Rs. 501/4/- on 4-9-1943. On 9-9-1948, the petitioner came to the complainant, Rameshwar Lal, and said that only 13 bales of cloth covered by three railway receipts had reached Dhanbad railway station and that he had taken delivery of the same and kept them in, the godown of one Gobindram Singhania, a prosecution witness in the case, at Purulia and that the eight bales of cloth covered by the railway receipt (Ext. 1) had not till then reached Dhanbad station. Rameshwar Lal asked the petitioner to go to Purulia and bring the goods from the godown of Gobindram Singhania in the complainant's truck, and the petitioner was also directed to bring the eight bales of cloth from the Dhanbad railway station if they had arrived by that time. The petitioner returned that very evening with 13 bales of cloth in the truck and stated that the eight bales of cloth had not till then arrived at the Dhanbad railway station. Thereafter, the complainant made over other railway receipts to Nathu Lal to bring other bales of cloth from the Dhanbad railway station, and Nathu Lal duly brought them and delivered them to the complainant stating that the eight bales of cloth had not been received till then at the Dhanbad railway station. The complainant's brother, Bijay Prasad (P. W. 13) gave to the complainant two letters on 28-9-1048 said to have been received from the complainant's servant Rameshwar Lal Bajaj (P. W. 9) from Jaipur district. These letters are marked Exts. 22 and 23. From these letters the complainant learnt that Nathu Lal was trying to misappropriate dishonestly the eight bales of cloth and his suspicion was aroused from the contents of these letters. He went to the Dhanbad railway station via Purulia where he related the facts to Govindram Singhania and requested him to be on the look out for Nathu Lall, and he learnt at the Dhanbad railway station that all the goods belonging to the people of Tatanagar had already been taken delivery of. The complainant went to Dhanbad Police Station and lodged a station diary report expressing his suspicion about the conduct of the petitioner. Next morning he learnt from the records kept at the goods office at Dhanbad that the petitioner had actually taken delivery of the eight bales of cloth covered by the railway receipt (Ext. 1) on 6-9-1948, and that on 8-9-1948, he had taken delivery of the other 13 bales of cloth, and thereafter a first information was lodged with the Dhanbad G.R.P. on 29-9-1948. The complainant thereafter went back to Patanagar. In the meantime, Govindram Singhania met the petitioner at Purulia, detained him there in his house and sent a telephonic message to the complainant informing him of the fact that the petitioner had been detained by him. The complainant with his brother Bijay Prasad came to Purulia next morning and met the petitioner who promised to return the eight bales of cloth taken by him. It is said that the petitioner told the complainant that the goods were lying at Tatanagar and so the complainant took the petitioner with him, and while they were on the way, the petitioner made another statement to the complainant to the effect that these bales of cloth were not at Tatanagar, but at Madhupur. The complainant thought that he was being misled by the petitioner and brought, the petitioner to Dhanbad and made him over to the G.R.P.

(3.) The defence is that the petitioner is not a servant of the complainant, but he is his partner in the cloth, business and that he withheld the delivery of the bales of cloth to the complainant in order to compel the complainant to render the partnership account to him which the complainant was refusing to do in spite of the requests made by the petitioner. The other line of defence taken was that the goods were actually delivered to the complainant.