Case – Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombay, 1960
Fact
On June 15, 1948, the Textile Commissioner invited tenders for dyeing Pugree Cloth. Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai was the Managing Director and the second appellant, a Director and technical expert of a cloth dyeing concern known as Parikh Dyeing and Printing Mills Ltd. They submitted their tender, and their tender was accepted.
The company entered into a contract with the Textile Commissioner undertaking to dye a large quantity of cloth which was supplied to the company for that purpose. In pursuance of the contract certain quantity of cloth was dyed and delivered to the Textile Commissioner by the company but it failed to dye and deliver the balance of cloth which remained in its possession and was not returned to the Textile Commissioner despite repeated demands.
On November 20, 1950, the contract was cancelled by the Textile Commissioner in respect of the balance of cloth and the company was called upon to give an account without any further delay of the balance undelivered and it was informed that it would be held responsible for material spoiled or not accounted for. The company admitted its liability. On December 29, 1952, the premises of the company and the place of residence of the appellants were raided, but no trace of the cloth was found. A complaint was then filed with the police charging the two appellants with criminal breach of trust in respect of 1,32,4041 yards of cloth belonging to the Government.
Issue
Whether appellants had dominion over yards of cloth?
Whether breach of trust must be proved by direct evidence and by precise mode?
Contentions & Judgement:
- To establish a charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution was not bound to prove the precise mode of conversion, misappropriation or misapplication by the accused of the property entrusted to him or over which he had dominion.
- The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted, if proved, may in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion.
- The mere failure of the accused to account for the property entrusted to him might not be the foundation of his conviction in all cases. But where he was unable to account and rendered an explanation for his failure which was untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent might readily be made.
- No information was given at any time to the Textile Commissioner after December 4, 1950, that the cloth had been eaten up by white-ants and moths, and was therefore thrown away or otherwise destroyed. Nor was any evidence led in support of the plea by the appellants.
- Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that conviction of both persons under section 409 r/w section 34 by High Court was justified. It was accepted that First appellant had dominion over property.
