EMPEROR Vs. SANALAL LALUBHAI AND GORDHANDAS KESHAVLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case there are two appellants before us. Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 213 of the Indian Penal Code with accepting the restitution of property in consideration of his screening a person from legal punishment for an offence, appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 214 with causing the restoration of property to a person in consideration of that person screening some person from legal punishment for an offence.

(2.) For the purpose of compendious description, preserving verbal accuracy only in points which are now material, it may be said that both the appellants have been convicted of taking or offering the restitution of property in consideration of screening an offence. The material words of the Statute which occur in both the sections are that the giving or accepting of the restitution of property should be in consideration of the accused person concealing an offence or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence or of his J. not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment.

(3.) The charge against these appellants arose out of certain dealings with some jewellery, and the case for the prosecution was that this jewellery was given by the second appellant to a man named Manilal, and was by Manilal fraudulently pledged with the first appellant under circumstances which constituted such pledging by Manilal the offence of criminal breach of trust in regard to the jewellery over which the complainant averred that he had a valid charge. It was further the case for the prosecution that these jewels were restored to the second appellant by the first appellant on an undertaking by the second appellant that he would not prosecute Manilal for the offence of criminal breach of trust.