APINASH CHANDRA SARKAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial of this case was vitiated by several irregularities and illegalities. In the summary form under Section 370 of 1he Criminal P. C., the offence is stated to be that of criminal breach of trust as managing agents of the Pioneer Assurance Company, Ltd., in respect of money entrusted to the accused between 1930 and 1931 by persons concerned with the said Company, by criminally misappropriating it. Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code: Further, for aiding and abetting one another in the commission of the aforesaid offence. Section 409-109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) But the charge, stated shortly, was 1. That the accused managing agents of the Company between September 4, 1930, a November, 15,1933, were parties to a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of property entrusted to them or over which they had dominion in the way of their business as managing agents of the Company, representing the share-holders, an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and in pursuance of this conspiracy various overt acts were committed and criminal breach of trust was committed in respect of certain money, and thereby the accused committed an offence under Section 120- B read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Cede. 2. That the accused at the time and place mentioned in Court, in furtherance of the common intention of all and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, as managing agents aforesaid, having been entrusted with the said money or having dominion over it, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of it and thereby committed an offence under Section 409.

(3.) It is not clear, therefore, whether the accused were charged with criminal breach of trust and abetment thereof as stated in the summary form, or with conspiracy and criminal breach of trust as in the charge. In any case the charges under Section 409 were bad because they offended against the provisions of the proviso to Section 222(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. They also offended against the provisions of Section 222(1), because particulars reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he was charged were not given.