EMPEROR Vs. PARABHU GHATGEAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arcused are eartmen employed to carry hemp and have been convicted of criminal breach of trust in respect 1907 of hemp entrusted to them as carriers.

(2.) To establish the essential elements of such offence it would have been necessary to show at least that some of the property entrusted to them could not be accounted for by them. But no Parabhu evidence admittedly has been adduced to show shortage in their Batty J. deliveries and therefore the corpus delicate is not established. The letters said to have been received from persons not called as witnesses, were not admissible in evidence at all. The fact that a considerable quantity of hemp was found in the possession of the accused may no doubt give rise to grave suspicion in the circumstances, but inasmuch as it has not been proved that any hemp belonging to the complainant was stolen, or that the hemp found in the possession of the accused was hemp belonging to the complainant no presumption against the accused can be legitimately drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. It is admitted that there is no evidence admissible and believed by the convicting Magistrate either to establish short delivery by the accused or theft of any portion of the hemp belonging to the complainant or the identity of the hemp in the possession of the accused as hemp belonging to the complainant.

(3.) In these circumstances we have no alternative but to set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the accused and direct the fines, if paid, to be refunded.