PARMESHWAR LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parmeswar Lal was tried by a Deputy Magistrate of Howrah on charges of offences punishable under Secs.408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges ran as follows: first: That you, on or about the 21 day of September 1908, at Calcutta, being a servant of Seumukh Rai and Lachhiram, and as such, entrusted with two refund cheques, one for Rs. 89 and the other for Rs. 64-9 by the firm on 20 idem, cashed the same at Howrah and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of (the) total sum of Rs. 153-9-0, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code." [This charge was subsequently amended by the addition of the words "on the 26 September" immediately after the figures Rs. 153-9]; and, secondly: That you on or about the 26 day of September 1908, at Howrah, having assured delivery clerk, Debendra Nath Mukherjee, that you would immediately pay the freight of 185 bags of mustard seed covered by railway receipt No. 94922 of the 9 September 1908 before taking delivery of the goods, thus dishonestly induced the said Debendra Nath Mukherjee so deceived to deliver the delivery orders of the consignment to you and that you did not pay the freight at all although the goods were removed, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code." He was convicted under both the sections and sentenced to terms of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the convictions were upheld.

(2.) Among other pleas, it was urged, on behalf of the petitioner, that the joint trial of the two charges, under Secs.408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in the circumstances of the case, was illegal. The learned Sessions Judge, however, held that the accused, who was a jamadar in the service of Seumukh Rai and Lachhiram of Barra Bazar, Calcutta, was entrusted with two cheques for encashment on the 20 of September 1908 and told to pay the freight and take delivery of the consignment of mustard seed from the East Indian Railway from the proceeds. Under these circumstances he held that the embezzling of money and the cheating of the Railway Company were all part of one transaction.

(3.) The petitioner obtained a Rule from us to show cause why the conviction and sentences should not be set aside on the ground that he could not be lawfully tried on the two different charges framed at one and the same trial. We have heard the learned Advocate-General who has shown cause. He relies on the case of Emperor V/s. Sherufalli Allibhoy 27 B. 135 which was followed by this Court in Emperor V/s. Sri Narain Prasod 11 C.W.N. 715 and by us in Cr. Rev. No. 131 of 1909. In our opinion, however, this case much more resembles Tilakdhari Das v. The Emperor 6 C.L.J. 757. On the 20 of September, the petitioner received the cheques for encashment. He cashed them on the 21st. On the 22nd, 23 and 24 when asked by his firm if he had cashed the cheques, he denied having done so. On the 25 of September, he was told to cash the cheques and to pay for and take delivery of the goods from the Railway. On the 26 of September he induced, under promise of immediate payment", a clerk of the Railway to give him delivery of the goods without payment and then absconded. It seems to us the offence of criminal misappropriation, which was an offence against his firm, was complete on the 21 of September when he received the money or, at any rate, on the 22nd when he denied having done so. On the 26 he cheated the Railway Company by deceiving their clerk and inducing him to deliver the goods without paying for them. The two offences committed against two separate persons seem wholly unconnected.