Pyare Lal Bhargava v State of Rajasthan 1963

हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहां क्लिक करें

Case Summary

Full Case Details

K. SUBBA RAO, J. – This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Revision No. 237 of 1951 confirming that of the Sessions Judge, Alwar, convicng the appellant under Secon 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 200.

2. To appreciate the quesons raised in this appeal the following facts, either admied or found by the High Court, may be stated. On November 24, 1945, one Ram Kumar Ram obtained permission, Ex. PB, from the Government of the former AlwarState to supply electricity at Rajgarh, Khertal and Kherli. Thereaer, he entered into partnership with 4 others with an understanding that the licence would be transferred to a company that be floated by the said partnership. Aer the company was formed it, put an applicaon to the Government through its managing agents for the issue of a licence in its favour. Ex. PW 15/B is that applicaon. On the advice given by the Government Advocate, the Government required Ram Kumar Ram to file a declaraon aested by a Magistrate with regard to the transfer of his rights and the licence to the company. On April 8, 1948, Ram Kumar Ram filed a declaraon to that effect. The case of the prosecuon is that Ram Kumar Ram was a friend of the appellant, Pyarelal Bhargava, who was a Superintendent in the Chief Engineer’s Office, Alwar. At the instance of Ram Kumar Ram, Pyarelal Bhargava got the file Ex. PA/1 from the Secretariat through Bishan Swarup, a clerk, before December 16, 1948, took the file to his house someme between December 15 and 16, 1948, made it available to Ram Kumar Ram for removing the affidavit filed by him on April 9, 1948 and the applicaon, Ex. PW 15/B from the file and substung in their place another leer Ex. PC and another applicaon Ex. PB. Aer replacing the said documents, Ram Kumar Ram made an applicaon to the Chief Engineer on December 24, 1948 that the licence should not be issued in the name of the company. Aer the discovery of the tempering of the said documents, Pyarelal and Ram Kumar were prosecuted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alwar, — the former for an offence under Secon 379 and Secon 465, read with Secon 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and the laer for an offence under Secons 465 and 379, read with Secon 109, of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted both the accused under the said secons and sentenced them on both the counts. On appeal the Sessions Judge set aside the convicon under Secon 465, but maintained the convicon and sentence of Pyarelal Bhargava under Secon 379, and Ram Kumar Ram under Secon 379 read with Secon 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Ram Kumar Ram was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and Pyarelal Bhargava to pay a fine of Rs. 200. Against these convicons both the accused filed revisions to the High Court, and the High Court set aside the convicon and sentence of Ram Kumar Ram but confirmed those of Pyarelal Bhargava. Pyarelal Bhargava has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised before us three points. [The first two points raised are not relevant for discussion under secon 379 IPC]. The third point which was raised and is relevant here was that on the facts found the offence of the has not been made out within the meaning of Secon 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. The facts found were that the appellant got the file between December 15 and 16, 1948, to his house, made it available to Ram Kumar Ram and on December 16, 1948 returned it to the office. On these facts it is contended that the prosecuon has not made out that the appellant dishonestly took any movable property within the meaning of Secon 378 of the Indian Penal Code. The said secon reads: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit the.The second may be dissected into its component parts thus: a person will be guilty of the offence of the, (1) if he intends to cause a wrongful gain or a wrongful loss by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entled or to which the person losing is legally entled, as the case may be: see Secons 23 and 24 of the Indian Penal Code; (2) the said intenon to act dishonestly is in respect of movable property; (3) the said property shall be taken out of the possession of another person without his consent; and (4) he shall move that property in order to such taking. In the present case the record was in the possession of the Engineering Department under the control of the Chief Engineer. The appellant was the Superintendent in that office; he took the file out of the possession of the said engineer, removed the file from the office and handed it over to Ram Kumar Ram. But it is contended that the said facts do not constute the offence of the for three reasons, namely (i) the Superintendent was in possession of the file and therefore he could not have taken the file from himself; (ii) there was no intenon to take in dishonestly, as he had taken it only for the purpose of showing the documents to Ram Kumar Ram and returned it the next day to the office and therefore he had not taken the said file out of the possession of any person; and (iii) he did not intend to take it dishonestly, as he did not receive any wrongful gain or cause any wrongful loss to any other person. We cannot agree that the appellant was in possession of the file. The file was in the Secretariat of the Department concerned, which was in charge of the Chief Engineer. The appellant was only one of the officers working in that department and it cannot, therefore, be said that he was in legal possession of the file. Nor can we accept the argument that on the assumpon that the Chief Engineer was in possession of the said file, the accused had not taken it out of his possession. To commit the one need not take movable property permanently out of the possession of another with the intenon not to return it to him. It would sasfy the definion if he took any movable property out of the possession of another person though he intended to return it later on. We cannot also agree with learned Counsel that there is no wrongful loss in the present case. Wrongful loss is loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entled. It cannot be disputed that the appellant unauthorizedly took the file from the office and handed it over to Ram Kumar Ram.

He had, therefore, unlawfully taken the file from the department, and for a short me he deprived the Engineering Department of the possession of the said file. The loss need not be caused by a permanent deprivaon of property but may be caused even by temporary dispossession, though the person taking it intended to restore it sooner or later. A temporary period of deprivaon or dispossession of the property of another causes loss to the other. That a person will act dishonestly if he temporarily dispossesses another of his property is made clear by illustraons (b) and (l) of Secon 378 of the Indian Penal Code.It will be seen from the said illustraons that a temporary removal of a dog which might ulmately be returned to the owner or the temporary taking of an arcle with a view to return it aer receiving some reward constutes the, indicang thereby that temporary deprivaon of another person of his property causes wrongful loss to him. We, therefore, hold that the facts found in this case clearly bring them within the four corners of Secon 378 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the courts have rightly held that the appellant had commied the offence of the.

9. No other point was pressed before us. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.