BHUPENDRA NATH SINHA Vs. GIRIDHARILAL NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of offences under Section 406, I.P. C, and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. The case for the prosecution was as follows: the joint family firm of Baldeoram Behari Lal, now consisting of Murari, Giridharilal and three minors, have carried on business for many years as Bankers and Banias at 49 Strand Road. In 1929 they started another business in hessians and gunnies under the name of Giridharilal & Co. at 135 Canning Street. The accused Sinha was a partner in a firm called Ram Sarup Mamchand, who were sole guaranteed brokers, for hessians and gunnies of David Sassoon & Co. Early in 1930 Girrdharilal proposed to Sinha that he should leave Ram Sarup Mamchand, join Giridharilal and Murari as a partner in their firm of Giridharilal & Co. and induce Sassoon & Co. to give them the appointment of sole guaranteed bazar gunny brokers.

(2.) Sinha consented, and it was agreed that he should have a seven annas share, and that they would provide a sum of Rs. 3 lacs, which would be required to be deposited as security with Sasoon & Co. Sinha thereupon obtained the appointment, the deposit being reduced subsequently to Rs. 1 lacs.

(3.) Business commenced, and Sinha used to do all the work of Giridharilal & Co. while Giridharilal and Murari devoted their attention to the business of Baldeoram Bohari Lal. But Sinha had no authority to draw or sign cheques nor, according to Giridharilal had he any right to receive money on behalf of Giridharilal & Co., without the permission of his partners. There was no written partnership agreement, and Sinha denies that there was any restriction upon his receiving money. On the face of it, such a restriction does not sound very plausible, and seems to be in the nature of an afterthought invented to meet subsequent developments. Sassoon's Manager was a man named Abraham, and Sinha suggested to Giridharilal that it would be good policy to offer him a bribe, not only to secure the continuance of the present appointment, but in order to induce him to put other business in the hands of Giridharilal & Co. Sinha says that this was Giridharilal's and Murari's suggestion and that he was afraid that such a bald offer might offend so refined a gentleman, but that his finer susceptibilities would not perhaps be outraged, if share speculation was transacted on his behalf to the extent of Rs. 1 lacs. Whoever made the suggestion first, all three agreed to it, though Giridharilal alleges that Abraham was to bear losses, if any. Abraham's name, for obvious reasons, did not appear in the firm's books in connexion with these transactions, and no agreement was made with him by Giridharilal & Co. Giridharilal admits that subsequently they got a great deal of extra business in jute, rape, linseed and other goods from Sassoon & Co. by favour of Abraham.