The offence was investigated into and a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under s. 409, I.P.C. and two other persons by the Officer in charge, Government Railway Police, Asansol.
He was alleged to have done this in companyspiracy with Ibrahim and Nepal Chandra Das.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 24, 1962 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
4515 J dated May 8, 1959 Law Judicial Department , Government of West Bengal.
Apparently he filed the charge sheet himself in the companyrt of Judge, Birbbum Special Court.
18 of 1963.
However, as set out in the order of Mr. Ganguly acquitting the appellant the case was distributed to the Birbhum Special Court for trial by numberification No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The facts which are number in dispute are these The appellant was tried for an offence under s. 409, I.P.C. by Mr. T. Bhattacharjee, Judge, Birbhum Special Court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. The only point which has been urged in this appeal by certificate from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta is whether the trial and companyviction of the appellant for an offence under s. 409, Indian Penal Code were barred by the provisions of s. 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code .
The appellant who was a shed clerk at Sainthia Railway Station is alleged to have companymitted criminal breach of trust with respect to 8 bags of suji which had been booked by rail at Murarai by one Bhikam Chand Pipria, the companysignee being the firm of Lalchand Phusraj of Sainthia.
K. Chakravarti and P. K. Bose, for the respondent.
601 of 1960.
N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
His companyviction was maintained in appeal by the High Court but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.
The prosecution examined 21 witnesses before him and on August 28, 1959 he framed a charge against the appellant under s. 409, I.P.C. The prosecution witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the appellant and the companyrt examined him under s. 342 of the Code.
Against the decision of the High Court the appellant took an appeal to the Privy Council.
