KEDARNATH BAJORIA AND Ors. V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

 

KEDARNATH  BAJORIA AND Ors. V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

 

 

JUDGES:

1. Chief justice M. PatanjaliShastri,

2. B.K. BoseVivian

3.Ghulam Hasan

4. Jagannadhadas B.

 

This case was held on 23^rd may 1953 in Supreme court of India

 

FACTS:

 

The appellants were the owners of the firm, Kedar Nath Mohanlal (firm) which was the managing agent for the Shiva Jute Press Ltd. Some of the godowns of the press were requisitioned by the government for the military purposes including the roofs of Nos. 19 and 20 which form one continuous space and were known as roof No. 20 of the Press. The military was in possession of the roof for 2 years and the charges arose out of the compensation claims made by the appellants to the military regarding the damage caused to the roofs due to the misuse and the damage of jute stock due to rain leaks through damaged roofs. The compensation accounts were calculated by the Area Lands and Hirings Disposals Officer namely Hari Ram, but the calculated accounts were said to be fraudulent by the succeeding officer.

 

 

ISSUES :

·       Whether there was actual damage in roof of Godowns of the firm?

·       Whether the damage on roofs on godowns of the firm is caused by the military?

 

JUDGEMENT:

·       A lot of documents have been submitted on part of prosecution as the charges of criminal misconduct, cheating and criminal conspiracy have to be proved only based on the circumstances which necessitates appreciation of evidence. A series of letters has been made on part of the firm to bring to the notice that the roof was in good condition but due to the misuse of the military, it is prone to risk of damage and water tank leakage and rain season damaging jute. But the military replied that the Garrison Engineer was appointed to deal with the repairs.

• The report given by the Garrison Engineer states that Godown 19 was not in occupation of government and any cost or damage has to be dealt by the owners and also stated that proper and adequate intimation was given in this case. The copy of the letter was sent to D.A.D., Land and Hirings Calcutta which was followed by a slip.
• It was mentioned through the evidence that the Godowns were given in possession of the firm and the military is not responsible for some damage to which they have no possession. On examination it was found that portions of the roofs were damaged due to the deterioration of Tee iron pieces supporting the flat tiles. The damages are due to the inherent defects in the construction of the roofs and the military cannot be held responsible for the damages on the repair of these private godowns.
• It was said that in this case, there is no specific evidence in the nature of contemporaneous reports or the like as to the condition of the roof as when the roof was taken by military and when it was handed back to the firm. There is no direct and stacking the kind of materials for use to which being put during these periods. The conclusion has to be drawn out only through assertions, counter assertions and the subsequent conduct of the parties.
• The repot of one of them has disappeared from the relevant file. Thee is no explanation for this disappearance or of the non-examination of any of the officers concerned particularly of Col. Wood and Mukerjee. There is nothing to show that none was available for examination in person or even on Constitution
• The damage was in respect of property belonging to the Press Company which was maintaining accounts and getting them audited. It may, therefore, be expected that the loss would have been shown in their books of account. But the reference to the book of accounts is not made before nay letter or Court which also raises suspicion.
• There is a complete lack of any reference to these matters in the questions put to either of the appellants under Section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code. This undoubtedly is a serious irregularity and cannot be lightly ignored.
• The circumstances prove that there is criminal conspiracy but the charges under Sections 420 of Indian Penal code and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act will not sustain.

·       On examination of the Garrison Engineer, it was found that the roof was already defective and thus it will wear out due to natural consequences. Moreover, no damage was caused due to the roof of keeping the packing cases. It is also noted that there was no jute in godown and even in case of leakage there would be no chance of damaging of jute

 

CONCLUSION:

The case has critically discussed the circumstances of the case to deliver to judgment. It is pertinent to note that the Special leave judgment was totally against the judgments rendered by the earlier courts. The conviction of the appellants was reduced to simple fine of Rs. 2500 and in case of default it is followed by simple imprisonment of 3 months. Moreover, the other appellant was asked to pay fine of 1000Rs. But still the enforceability of the case is still under question as it is in contradiction with the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Bench in the same case.