EMPEROR Vs. LALA RAOJI MAHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was a Range Forest Officer, has been convicted of having committed criminal breach of trust as a public servant under Section 409 read will Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. He was originally sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Ks. 300, but on appeal the sentence was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 100.

(2.) In revision it is contended that the facts found do not justify a conviction under Section 409. The appellant was tried with two clerks, Laia Baoji one the Depot Clerk and the other a clerk in his own office, and Fawcett J. it was proved that these two clerks unduly delayed in making certain remittances to the Government treasury. The Sessions Judge has held that there was an understanding between the appellant and his two clerks to keep Government monies as long as possible in the office, and that he must have noticed the fact that accumulated large amounts were sent at intervals to the treasury instead of in the shape of daily collections, as was required under departmental rules. On the other hand, he held that there was no evidence to show that any of the three actually misappropriated or converted to his own use even a pie of Government money. It was argued before him that some overt act had to be proved in order to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, besides the mere retention of the monies for an excessive period. But the learned Sessions Judge rejected this contention, holding that for a dishonest disposal such proof was not absolutely essential. He says : The rules required the Government monies not to be kept in the office beyond at the moat a day or two. The proper disposal of the monies would have been to send it to the treasury without delay. The accused, whoever were responsible for holding the monies at their own disposal, violated the directions under which they had to perform their duties and were, therefore guilty of criminal breach of trust.

(3.) He also refers to Secs.23 and 24 of the Indian Penal Code, and says there was dishonesty as Government were wrongfully kept out of their use of their monies for Borne time, so that, there was wrongful loss caused to Government, and "as this was not due to mere inadvertence or negligence the act of the accused must be considered as dishonest in the sense in which that word is used in the Indian Penal Code". He also found one circumstance which led him to suspect that the sums retained in the office were not always there. But the conviction is not based upon this, but upon the ground that the two clerks unlawfully kept the monies in the office, and the appellant willfully connived at his subordinates acts.