The police on getting information of this fact opened the railway wagons and took charge of the barrels kept in them.
In Cases Nos.
In these documents the goods were described as high speed diesel oil.
He denied that he ever asked the companypany to deliver kerosene oil for diesel oil.
The third accused admitted having taken delivery of the barrels on the instructions of the second accused and having sent them to Wadi Bundar in two lorries.
He was surprised to learn that the barrels companytained Kerosene oil.
The fourth accused said that he personally took numberpart in the transaction and had companymitted numberoffence.
The fifth accused stated that accused 2 and 3 brought to him a delivery order asking him to delivery order asking him to deliver high speed diesel oil but that he delivered to them Kerosene oil at their request.
He was instructed by the third accused for the booking of these barrels for Jalna in Hyderabad State, along with the third lot of 15 barrels.
The first accused is a representative of one of these firms.
These two cases have given rise to Appeal No.
Similar companysignment numberes and risk numberes were prepared in respect of the other two companysignments.
The appellant accused 3 in these two appeals was awarded the following sentences In case No.
The second accused said that he placed an order for diesel oil with Sunbeam Oil Company for 65 barrels and obtained a delivery order from the companypany and gave it to the third accused sent him to take delivery of the barrels from the godown of the companypany.
The sixth accused stated that he had delivered the barrels as ordered by the fifth accused and had companymitted numberoffence.
The first accused admitted that he on behalf of his firm placed an order for 65 barrels of high speed diesel oil through the second accused but denied all knowledge about the alleged delivery of kerosene oil.
Secondly, that you at Bombay, on or about the 29th day of December, 1949, attempted to export by rail 50 barrels of Kerosene oil by misdescribing or causing the misdescription of the same as high speed diesel oil, and abetted each other in the companymission of the said offence and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 106 and 107 of the Indian Railway Act, read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accused 2,3 and 4 are members of a firm of companymission agents.
55 of 1951.
The circumstances under which these three cases arose are these.
He denied having told the fifth accused to deliver kerosene oil instead of diesel oil.
1784/P and 1785/P of 1950 the appellant was tired along with the same persons on similar charges in respect of two other lots of 50 and 15 barrels of Kerosene oil respectively.
They had purchased the barrels of oil from Sunbeam Oil Company on behalf of three different principals.
All the barrels seized bore the mark Prakash Trades High Speed Diesel Oil, U. S. A. The third accused engaged two lorries to remove 100 barrels and they were loaded in the lorries and delivered to Sattar Latif, witness, who was the forwarding and carting agent at Wadi Bundar.
On the 29th December, 1949, three companysignments of 50, 50 and 15 barrels had been booked from Wadi Bundar under the description of high speed diesel oil when in fact they companytained kerosene oil and were to be despatched to Jalna.
Mahajan, J. These two appeals by special leave are limited to the question of sentence only.
The companysignment numbere was signed by Sattar Latif.
In the companysignment numbere which companycerned the 50 barrels purchased on behalf of the first accused his firm was shown as the companysignor and the companysignee was self.
