1
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT AT BOMBAYi CONSTITUTED UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT
OF OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS IN
SECURITIES> ACT,1992
SPECIAL CASE NO. 1 of 2002
CANARA BANK, TRUSTEE OF
CANBANIC
FUND HAVI NG ITS OFFICE AT
ORIENT HOUSE, ADI MARZBAN
PA l'H 1 BALLARD ESTATE,
BOMBAV 400 038
vs.
PALLAV SETH, A SHARE/ STOCK BROl
HIS OFFICE AT OFFICE
PREM ISES NO. 131, 13TH
FLOOR, B' WlNG, M lTTAL
TOWER, 210, NARIMAN
POINT, BOMBAY - 21.
COMPLAINANT.
ACCUSED.
MR. K.G.MENON I /B. ��. DAVE & GIRISH & CO .FOR THE
COMPLAINANT.
I
MR. AMOL CHAUGULE I/B. M/S. N INA CHAUGULE & ASSOCIATES
FOR THE ACCUSED.
CORAM 1 S.K.SHAH, 1.
JUDGE,
SPECIAL COURT.
: october tr 20os. JUD6"ENT
DATE
1. The accused stands charged for having committed offence punishable under Section 409, 420 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. This is a private complaint, o rigin a ll y 1lodged in the Court o f the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. Since the transaction was with regard to the Securities and having taken place during 1 ��v1W ..
the specified period, \olhich was under the
,
2
provisions of the Special Court < Trial of offences Relating to the Tran sac
tion s in Securities) Act, 19927 Metropolitan Magistrate returned the complaint for being presented to the Special Court. Accor din gl y, the Complai nt was presented in this Court and proceeded accordingly.
3. The complainant is the Canbank Off shore> Mutual Fund of which tha Canara Bank is the Trustee. The accused is the Share/Stock broker dealin9 in sec urities.
4. The complainants allege that as per their instructions, the accused delivered contract note, d ated 2nd April, 1992 and represented that accused had sold on behalf of the Complainants, 20 thousand shares of Nestle India Limited @ Rs. 415 per share. Thereupon, the complainants became entitled to receive from the accused a sum of Rs. 83 l ac , towards the sale price of the said shares. rt was further alle9ed that on the representation of the accused, the said 20,000 shares of Nestle India Ltd. were d elivered to the accused alongwith th e Blank Share Transfer Forms, duly signed by the complainant, as a transferor. These shares were d elivered against the postf dated ch equef
2
3 :
encashment. However, the accused informed the complainant that the cheque should b� deposited for encashment only on 29th June, 1992. Accordingly, the cheque
with
was deposited for encashment on 29th June, 1992 the Canara Bank. However, it was returned with the remarks "refer to d rav1er", which means that the funds were insufficient to honour the cheque. The Complainants then immediately informed about the dishonour of the cheque to the accused. However, the accused e:
that, in
cheques. It is alleged ;by the Complainant case of late credit, the Bank normally does not return the cheque 111i th the remark 11 refer to drau1er11 but the cheque, in that event, is returned uii th the adviseII Effects
Complainants allege
not clear present again" .
that even then they believed
The
the
accused but the accused did not keep the assu··rance and failed to send the Pay Orders. The complainants allege that from time to time, they told the accused that the shares !)Jere entrusted u1i th the accused a s a broker for the specific purpose of sale and the payment of the sale price to the Complainant. They also made i� clear to the accused that since the accused had already sold
3
: 4 ; the s hares the sale price shou l d be paid to the Complainants.
5 . It is further alleged by the Compla i n ant that on 6th July, 1992, the accused went to the office of the Complainant and represented that he did not want ta commit the b rea ch of trust and h anded over two cheques, both dated 6th July, 1992 drawn on Bak of America, Main Branch, Mumbai, one for s. 50,00,000/- and another for Rs. 33,00,000/-
cl eared without
stating that these c heques would be
any d ifficulties. Bel ieving the
accused, the Complainants accepted those cheques and deposited them on the same day i.e.
however, once again the banker
on 6th July, 1992,
re t urned both the
cheques with the remarks "refer to drawer". The accused, thereafter, on ce again approached the Complainant and further represented that those two cheques should again be presented to the Banker for encashmen t, assuring that those two cheques would not be returned unpaid. According l y , the
presented those two cheques on 4th
Again; both the cheques were returned
complainants
Au9ust, 1992.
unpaid. The
reason for dishonour on that occasion was that the acused ' s account was frozen pursuant to instructions issued by the Income Tax Department. the
6. The Complainants, therefore , allege that the accused had comm i tt e d criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the 20000/- shares of
4
s Nestle India Limited, 1o1hich i.-1ere entrusted to him as a broker. It is alleged that he sold those shares and misappropriated the sale price. The accused neither returned the shares or paid sale price of th� shares to the Complainants. The Complainants have. therefore, filed the complaint.
7. The defence of the accused is of total denial � According to his defence, the transaction with the Complainant was en principal to principal basis. The defence is that he did not make any assurance, representations nor did he induced the complainants to
"'� ,. fe the delivery of 20000/- shares of Nestle India Ltd. It is also his defence that he never deceived the Complai nants. His defence is also that he did not make any assurance to make any payment. It is further his defence that it is onl y a Civil liability and that he has n ot committed any offence.
8. At the outset it has to be mentioned that the Charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 409 and in t he alternative for Offenc es pun ish ab le under Section 420 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The Complainant, has, however not
..
pT" ess ed the alternative charge1 under Section 420 as also under Section 117 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, only offence that is pressed against the accused is the l.�
one, under Section4,09 of the Indian Penal Code.
5
6 :
9. As such, the following points arise for my determination to which I record my findings against each of them for the reasons recorded below:-
POINTS.
<1> Whether it is established by ·the prosecution that the Complainants had entrusted to the accused 20,000 shar�s of Nestle India Ltd. on 2nd April, 1992, in his capacity as a Broker under a contract for selling the same @ Rs.415 per share?
<2> Whether it is established that the accused dishonestly misappropriated o r converted to his own benefit the said shares and/or i ts sale consideration ?
<3> What offence, if any, the accused had committed ?
( 4) What Order?
FINDINGS-
( 1> In the
affirmative.
(2) In t.he a-ff i rmat ive. <3> Offence U/s. 409 of the I.P.C. <4> Accused is
convicted as per final Order.
6
7
RE ASONS
10. In support of its ca»e, the Complainants have examined two w i tnesses, one is Mr. N.S.Sriram, working with the Complainants, the other witness is Rajendra A9arwal, who is from Nestle India L imited. On the side of the accused, he has examined defence w itness Tushar Amban i, who is serving with the Bombay Stock Exchange.
11. It is undisputed that the Complainants - Canbank (offshore> Mutual Fund Cfor short " Complainant-fund">, was involved in purchase and »ale of various shares and securities from the Stock Exchange through r e
cognized brokers. The object of the fund was to invest in Indian Capital Market. It i• further undisputed that the accused was broker at the relevant t ime. Earl ier, he was working with Brokera9e Firm with Shrenik K. Jhaveri, which was a reg istered member of the Bombay Stock Exchange and thus t•1as independently acting as broker- f irm for the Complainant-fund. The while he was working with Shrenik Jhaveri was accused
himself
dealing on behalf of the Firm with the Compla inant-fund for the transaction of purcha se and sale of the shares and secLtrit ies.
12. It transaction is further not in dispute that there was a between the Complainant-fund and the accused u1i th regard to 20 thousand shares of Nest le India Li mited in April, 1992. Under that transaction,
8
the Complainant fund �anted to sell 20000 shares of Nestle India Limited, through the Accused. The Complainant-fund's witness Sriram, PW .... , £ ' was the only person from Complainant-fund, who was dealing in shares and securities of the fund and tiJas interacting 1>1ith the accused for that purpose. Witness Sriram, PW 2 states �hat since the Complainant-fund desired to dispose of 20000 shares of Nestle India Limited, he contacted the accused, in his capacity as a broker, for the disposal of those shares. There was a negotiation of the price of the shares, �hich was finalised at Rs • • 415/- per share. Accordingly, the accused issued a contract note CExhibit 9J. The Contract note is signed by the accused. It clearly mentions that the accused acting as broker on behalf of the Complainant-fund, on behalf of the Complainant-fund, had entered into a transaction of sale of 20000 shares of Nestle India Limited for Rs. 415/-
per share. The Contract note further specifica
.
lly specifies that the brokera9e had been
"
- c:harge J at a rate, not exceedin9 the official scale of brokerage and it is included in the price. Thi$ contract note is dated 2nd April, 1992. This contract note is produced on record. Witn�ss Sriram PW 2 further states that he was after the accused for settlement. He explains what is meant by settlement. He states that the settlement means for delivery of the shares and receipt of payment of those shares. It is further undisputed that the accused gave excuses tor settlement on account of the share brokers strike�
9
because of which the Bombay Stock E�change w�s not functioning. Accused had asked the witness to wait for few days. Witness Sriram - PW 2 further states that the accused ora.l ly reprE!sented to him that he should· deliver to the accused, the shares alongwith blank share transfer forms, duly signed by the authorised officer of the Complainant-fund and for ensuring the payment, the accused would handover the post dated < .
chequef for the transact ion value. The i.1i tness further states hat he agreed to this suggestion made by the accused, as it was also the market practice. He further states that he agreed to this suggestion, particularly because the accused assured that the post dated cheque� would be enc ashed on the due date. Accordingly, on 5.b.1992, the accused told the witness that he would send his employee Mr. Vilas More, who would carry the cheque for Rs. 83,00,000/-� dated 20.6.1992 drawn on Bank of America, in �avour of the Canara Bank and further requested th�t the witnesg should hand over to the representative cf the accused, Mr. More, the shares and the blank transfer for�s, duly signed by the Authorised Officer of the Complainant-fund.
on 5.6.1992, Hr.
l�i tness Sri ram
Accordingly on the same day, i . e.
More went to the office o� the
PW 2 and handed over the cheque for
Rs. 83,00,000/-, which is at Exhibit-11.
Ha.vin9
received the cheque, witness Sriram - PW 2, further states that he gave instructions to the Custodi•l de partment to deliver 20000 shares alongwith the blank
1 <) transfer forms, duly signed by the Authorised Officer and, accordingly, the Custodial Department, the Witness states that, in his presence, delivered the shares and blank transfer forms, with a list of particulars of the shares like share certificate numbers, di-st inct ive numbers etc. to accused's representative Mr. More. Mr. More thereupon acknowledged the receipt thereof by signing the deliv ery Challan No. 4480 (Exhibit 10J. 20000 shares were in different lots of 50 shares. As such 400 blank share transfer forms, duly signed by the Authorised Officer, were delivered alongwith the shares to Mr. More. All this evidence has gone unchallenged. The Complainant-fund have also produced the delivery challan at Exhibit 10, bearing the signature of Mr. More. Exhibit 10 is the carbon copy of the ori�inal challan, which was given to Mr. More. The list of the shares is on record at Exhibit-2. The witn9ss Sriram, PW 2 states that this delivery cf the shares and blank share transfer forms, duly signed by the Authorised Officer were delivered to Mr.More en 5.6.1992, which is the date appearing on the Deli very Chall an CE�
10].
13. The the cheque was dated the Bank witness Sri ram - PW 2 further states that for Rs. 83,00,000/-
was post dated, which v --tt! ..,_-
20.6. 1992. The cheque "'as then presented. I\
to
for clear ance on 21) • 6 • 1 992 • The witness Sriram - PW 2 further states that prior to 20.6.1992, the accused telephoned him and pleaded that he had some
10
11 I
financial difficulty and, therefore, requeste d the witness tc u1ai t for fe1.11 days and then cheque a little later. Few days later, deposit the
the u1i tness
states, he called the accused regarding the depositing the cheque and, thereupon, the accu�ed asked him to deposit the cheque, promising that the cheque would be honou red . Accordingly, he deposited the cheque on 29.6.1992 with the Funds Banker Canara Bank, Fort Branch , Mumbai. The cheque, however, was dishonoured and the returned with the remarks �refer to drawer " The debit advise and the return slip produced at Exhibit
12. The witness states that he, therefore, informed the accused on telephone about the dishonour of the cheque. The accused however , asked him to redeposi t the cheque and accordi ngly , he red�posited the cheque on t.7. 1992. However, the cheque was returned �ith remarks "funds e:
11
r 12 r accused 1aJent to the Office of the Complainant-Fund .and met witness Sriram - PW 2 and handed over two cheques, both dated 6.7.1992, one for Rs. 50,00,0001- and another for Rs. 33,00,0001- and promised that both the cheques would be honoured. These two cheques [Exhibit 16<1> & 16<2>1 were presented to the Banke� for encashment, however, again both the cheques were dishonoured and the debit advise and the return slip about the same are produced at Exhibit -17
. The witness further stateg that the accused gave excuses and pleaded more time and promised to make arran9ement to make payment. He further states that they had ;no reason to di�believe the accused as on all earlier occasions, when there were such transactions, the accused had promptly made the payment. Therefore, again they wa i ted for few days and kept on reminding the accused.
accused called witness Sriram - PW 2 and asked him to deposit those cheques again. Accordin9ly, those two cheques 1.11ere a9ain deposited on 3.8.1992; but both the cheques were again dishonoured and returned with remark .. account fro2en as per the instruction� of the income tax department". The said debit memo is produced at E:'.hibi t-18. Thereafter, the witness states, that they gave notice (Exhibit 19] through advocate and also wrote to the Bombay Stock Exchang� CExhibit 20J about the same.
14. From this evidence it is clearly established
12
13
that the Complainant-fund had a contract witn the accused, in his capacity as a broker. lbe contract was for selling 20,0001- shares of Nestle India Limited, held by the Complainant-fund. As per the Contract CExhibit-9J, the agreed price was Rs. 415/- per share. It is further established that as per the market practice and as per the representations made by the accused, witness Sriram PW 2, agreed to deliver these 20000 shares alongwith the blank share transfer forms to the accused, against post dated cheques. In this regard in the cross-ex amination, the witness Sriram PW 2 has clarified f that since the Complainant-fund was not a member of the Stock Exchange, they had to undertake the purchase and sell transactions in the shares and securities, through registered broker. The -� . .
llfi tness also c 1 ari f ied {hat the procedur.a,J. involved in
(
selling -{he shares on the floor of the Bombay Stock E:
delivery of the Shares to the Exchange on pay-in date and on the pay-out date, they used to get the money from the Exchange. This procedure was called the procedure of settlement for sale. Hef further eNplains that in 1992, however, they (>Jere not the members of the -,/'
Stock Exchange Clearing·House and, therefore, they �ee I\
advance delivery of shares to the broker against post dated cheques. As such, the delivery of 20000 shares alon9"11i th the � blank share trans fer forms 1t1ere made to the accused against the post dated cheques, issued by him in favour of the
,
: 14
Complainant-fund.
15. In fact, the receipt of 20000 shares alongwith the blank share transfer forms,..-has not been denied by the accused. What is the contention of th9 accused,however,is that it wa$ out and out transaction for sale of those 20000 ahares by the Complainant-fund to the accused and it is only a matter of nonpayment of the price of the shares. However, this defen�e ie without any substance. As discussed earlier and from the evidence of the Complainant's witness SriramPW 2, and the documentary evidence,namely, the contract note Exhibit 9, delivery challan- Exhibit 10, clear that the delivery of the shares alongwith the blank share transfer forms to Mr. More, the representative of the accused, was under a contract with the accused, as broker, for sale of those shares on the floor of the Bombay Stock Exchange. It was not out and out sale transaction. In this regard the witness Sriram-- PW 2 specifically 9tates that the Complainant-fund was dealing in purchase and sale of the various shares and securities on the floor of the Stock Exchange, through recognized brokers. He further clarified that the complainant-fund was not permitted to sell the shares and securities to the brokers but the sale was throu9h the brokers. � He further clarified that as per the Mutual Funds Regulations, it is provided that the broker cannot act as principal for purchase and/or sale of the �ecurities. This evidence
14
a 15 a has gone unchallenged. Therefore, the �efence that it was a transaction of sale of the shares to the accused not as a broker but as a principal, is not believable at all. This is moreso from the wording of the Contract Note [Exhibit -9]. This defence is merely an after thought and it is put up to avoid the liability.
16. This evidence, therefore, establishes the entrustment of 20000 shares of Nestle India Limited to the accused, in his capacity as a broker. This entrustment was for the purpose of selling them on the floor of the Stock Exchange for and on behalf of the Complainant-fund. The witness Sriram-PW 2 has also clarified in the cross-examination that the Complainant-fund continued to be the owner cf the Shares till the fund gets the cheque credited in their account. It is undisputed that the accused has neither returned
shares,
the shares nor has paid the sale price of the as a9reed as per the Contract (Exhibit -91 to the complainant-fund. The
Complainant-fund is that the
ofthe
accused had
misappropriated those shares and converted the $ame to his own benefit, the shares or its 5ale consideration.
17. For establishing an offence under Sec tion 409 of
15
16
the Indian Penal Code, however, only the entrustment of the property alone is not sufficient, it is further required to be proved that th� entrusted property has been dishonestly misappropriated or converted by the accused to his own use. In thi� regard, as stated earlier, the entrustment has been proved. There is also ample evidence to -a how that the acc:used had issued the c:heque Of Rs. 83,00,0C)/- being agreed price of the shares, which
v
to be sold the floor of the Stock i.1ee on /\
E:
17
Contract Note Exhibit- 9.
19. As regards the misappropriation or conversion of the shares to his own use, by the accuged, the Complainant has led evidence to the effect hat the accused had already sold the shares and mi�appropriated the sale consideration thereof. In this regard Sriram PW 2 has stated that he had made inquiries with the Nestle India Company in writing and learnt therefrom that all the 20000 shares entrusted to the accused were sold to different parties. He states that 13300 shares were sold and transferred in the name of Classic Financial Services Ltd.,700shares were transferred i n the name of different individuals and 6000 shares were sold and transferred t o Me. Man ju Gupta. He also learnt from the Company that the applications made by Ms. Manju Gupta for tr�nsfer of the shares was not entertained as the Complainant-fund had taken objection. The relevant corT'espondence &>tith the Company is produced at E:
PW 1 i-s also examined for identification of 20000 shares. The list of the shares giving details of the share certificate numbers and distinctive numbers of the shares has been produced at E:
19 l discrepancy in the distinctive numbers and the· total being 20000 shares. Apart from this, it is not necessary for the Complainant ta establish the manner of misappropriation or conversion to his; own use, bv the accused. In this re9ard, the learned Counsel for the complainant has relied on the decision of the ApeK Court in the case of JAU(RISHNADAS MANOHARDAS DESAI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY reported in AIR 1960 SC 889. The relevant observations of the Ape� Court are thus:-
" Direct evidence to establ jsh misappr-opriatjon o'f thea cloth over which the appellants had dominion is undoubt�dly lacking, but to establish a charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode af conversion, misappropriation or misappl ic:ation by the sc:cused of the property entrusted to him or· over which he has dominion. The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not ordinari Jy bE' a matter of di rec·t proof, entrustment of the property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrustE'd, if proved, may in the li9ht of the other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Conviction of a person for the offence of criminal bresch of trust may not, in all cases, be founded merely on his failure to account for the property entrusted to him,or over, t41hich he has dominion, even when a duty to account is imposed upon him, but where he is unable to account or renders an explana�ion for his failure to account which is untrue, an inference of misappropriation t1.1ith dishonest intent may readily be made made".
19. Similar view is exp ressed by the Apex Court in case of N. BHARGAVAN PILLAl
" It is fairly well-settled posjtjon in law that ac:tual mode of entrustment or misappropria-tion is not to be proved by the prosecution. Once entrust:ment: js proved, jt is for thE' acr:t1roed to
18
: 19 :
prove as to how the property entrusted was dealt ltJi th •..
20. Th e learned Counsel for the Complainant-fund also submitted that once the entrustmet of the property to the accused is established and the accused has no plausible e:
"6. What amounts to criminal breach .of trust is provided in Sec tion 405 /PC. BE' ct i on 409 is in essence criminal breach of t ru st by a cat eg ory of persons.The ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are :
(J) £ntrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; i2J The person entrusted f �) dishonestly mi sappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or c'bJ dishonestly using or disposi ng of that property or wi 1 fully_ suffering any other person so as to do in violation- fi) of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which
sc.1ch trust is to be discharged; or
7. The basic: req1.1i rement to bring home the accusation Lmder Section 405 are the requirements to prove conjointly ( 1) entrustment, and (2) whether the accused flJas actuated by the dishonest intention or not misappropriated it or converted j t to his 011/n use to the detriment of th·e persons who entrusted it. As the question of intention is
J 20 c not a matter of direct proof, certain broad tests are en vi sagea 111hi ch 1A1ould general 1 y afford useful guidance in deciding whether in a particular case the acc1.tsed hsd mens rea for the crime."
21. These observations are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. the f.act of the entrustment of 20000 shares to the accused in his capacity as a broker is proved. It is also proved that these shares 1.<1ere entrusted to the accused under the contract CExhibit-91 for selling them on the floor of the Stock exchange at the agreed rate of Rs.415/- per share. As per the market practice and on the representations mad� by the accused to the complainant's witness Sriram - PW 2, these shares alongwith the blank share transfer forms were delivered to the accused's representative Mr. More again�t the post dated cheques for Rs. 83,00,000/-. The cheque was dishonoured twice. The accused then promised to issue Pay Order, which he never issued. He then later issued two cheques , cne for Rs. 5c),Oc),000/- and another for Rs. 33,
dated
the
liability of giving to the Complainant-fund 20000 shares of Nestle India Limited. He wrote in the letter that out of these shares, 6000 shares would be r�turned to the Complainant within next three weeks and the balance would be delivered within 8 to 10 week� thereafter. But this promise is also not kept and not a single share \>las returned. There is, there1'ore, sufficient evidence to show that the accu�ed had sold
20
: 21
out these shares and misappropriated the amount. At any rate, when the entru5tment of 20001) shares is proved to have been made to the accused, it is for the accused to show as to how he dealt with those shares and accused has totally failed to show this. The accused also totally failed to explain a s to what happened to those shares, "'he th er they were sold on the floor of the Stock EKchange and if so, what happ�nad to the consideration received by him. The fact remains that the accused has neither returned to the Compl atnant- fund, 20000 shares nor the sale consideration thereof, nor the price agreed pri�e of Rs. 83,00,000/-. These facts, therefore, clearly establish that the accused has misappropriated the shares and/or converted' them to his own use by sel 1 ing them and misappropriating the sale consideration.
22. The learned Counsel for the accused, however� vehemently submitted that there was only a civil liability of paying the price of the shares by the accused and there was no criminal intention in it. He also submits that the accused has, admittedly, admitted the liability to pay amount of Rs. 83,-00,01)0/- to the Complainant-fund towards the agreed price of 20000 shares of Nestle India Limited's Share-s. The contention on behalf of the Complainant,however, is \hat the dishonest misappropriation of those shares on the part of the accused is writ large. He submits that the accused kept on giving false promises to the
21
22 :
Complainant-fund for paying the amount of 83,00,000/-.
In this view of the matter, I do not find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the accused. Dishonest intention is quite clear and it is since beginning of the transaction.
representa tion of the accused
It is
that 20000
the
share s
alongwith blank share tran�fer form5, duly signed by
... ,,
the Authorised Officer, were �� delivered to the representative of the a cc us ed , against post dated cheques, that was also as per the market practice. What is pertinent to be noted is that the cheque was post dated, the transaction took place o
n 2nd April, 1992. The delivery of the shares and blank share transfer forms against the post dated cheque was made on 5.6.1992, the cheque was pest dated of 20.6.1992. Before the due date of the cheque, the accused had called the Complainant's witn�ss Sriram- PW 2 and requested hem to present the cheque for encashment a little later. Accordin9ly, the cheque came to be presented on 29.6.1992. It was dishonoured. Again, the accused requested to present the cheque subsequently and on such subsequent presenta tion also the cheque was dishonoured. Then he happened t promise to issue Pay Order, which he never issued. He then delivered two cheques, one for Rs. 50,c)O,OOOI- and another for Rs. 33,00,000/-, both were dishonoured, n o t once b u t twice. This conduct of the accused shows
22
23
a clear dishonest intention of misappropriation of t he shares o r its sell consideration.
24. Under thecirc:umstances, the off.ence under Section 409 has been clearly established against the accused. The accused is therefore held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
25. The punishable Penal Code accused is not held guilty for under Section 420 and 417 of the cf fence
Indian
of the· Indian Penal Code as these charges were not pressed by the Complainant. The accused is, therefore, acquitted of those charges. cs.K.SHAHl
JUDGE,
SPECIAL COURT.
26. At this stage, I hear the accused on the point of quantum of sentence.
27. Heard parties learned Counsel for on the point of $entence. the complainant submits The
24 r learned Counsel represen ting the accu$ed subnmits tha t lenient view should be taken in view of the facts and circumstances of this case.
28.. Considering those arguments and considering the fac ts of the case, the accused has misappropriated the amoun t of Rs.83 lakhs which was the public money. Considering this aspec t, I pass the fallowing order 1- The ACCLtSed is found guil ty of the offence
.,
punishable under Section 409 of 1.P.C. and is hereby convic ted thereof and sen tenced to sufer R.I. tor six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
CS.K.Sh&hl
1udge,
Special Caurt.
24
Comments