PRAFULLA CHANDRA KHARGHORIA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the appellant has been convicted under Section 477-A I. V. C, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The only point which has been raised in this appeal is that the charge is bad under Section 234, Criminal P. C, and therefore the whole trial is vitiated by the defect in the charge. The charge framed by the committing Magistrate is in these words: That you on or about the dates between 1 March 1929 and 13 March 1929 at Digboi, being a clerk in employment tinder the Assam Oil Company Limited, wilfully and with intent to defraud, falsified certain papers and accounts to wit, the pay sheets of General Workshop and Bioilershop for the mon February, 1929 (Ex. 3) by making false entries in respect of the aggregate sum of Rs. 400 in the totals under the column Nett Amount Payable, at pp. 3, 6, 11 and 13, viz: Us. 1937-10-0 for Rs. 1837-10-0 at p. 3. Us. 1180- 1-0 for Rs. 1080- 1-0 at p. 6. Us. 1.073- 0-0 for Rs. 1573- 0-0 at p. 11. Rs. 849 - 8-0 for Rs. 749 - 8-0 at p. 13.

(2.) which papers and accounts belonged to the said Assam Oil Company Limited, your employer,, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 477-A, I. P.C., and within my cognizance.

(3.) The learned advocate for the appellant argues that the charge framed is in contravention of Section 234, Criminal P. C, inasmuch as the accused is charged with making more than three false entries. Before construing the charge let us look to the language of Section 477-A. The section is divided into two parts. In other words, it speaks of two offences which are distinct and not interdependent. Clause 1 of the section makes the falsification of accounts, etc., an offence; and the latter portion of it makes it an offence to make a false entry or omit or alter or abet the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, etc. The first offence consists in falsifying an account book or paper, writing, or valuable security. The falsification may be made by making false entries in the account or omitting to make entries which should have been made. Clause 2 of the section contemplates an offence which, apart from the falsification of the book, may be committed by a person by simply making false entries or omitting to make true entries. Now the charge framed in this case is primarily for falsification of certain papers and accounts, namely the pay sheets of General Workshop and Boiler-shop. That is one particular document stitched together in the form of a book and marked Ex. 3, which the appellant is accused of having falsified. The method by which falsification is made is detailed in the charge by pointing out four false entries in the account, which were made for the purpose of defalcating Rs. 400. What the accused is charged with is that on certain dates, between 1 and 13 March 1929, he falsified Ex 3 by making four false entries by overcharge, Rs. 100 on each occasion with the intention of misappropriating Rs. 400 at the end of the month when the amount was to be paid off. In my opinion, when a person is charged with falsification of accounts, any number of falsifications may be proved in order to sustain the principal charge of falsification. The view I take is fertified by some observations made in the case of Raman Behari Das V/s. Emperor 1914 41 Cal. 722. There the point raised was that a joinder of three charges under Section 409, with three others under Section 477-A I.P.C., relating to different transactions, was not warranted in law. There the accused was charged with misappropriation of three sums of money and the falsification of accounts not relating to the amounts misappropriated but in respect of different items. The learned Judges held that such a charge is bad in law and it cannot be justified under Section 222 (2), Criminal P.C. In expressing their opinion upon this point they observed: