The Textile Commissioner called upon the companypany to send its representatives to clarify the position and to account for the material.
After receiving this letter, the second appellant attended at the office of the Textile Commissioner and on November 27, 1952, wrote a letter stating that the main factors involved in number delivering the goods in finished state was that the material was very old , was dhobibleached in different lots, was bleached under different companyditions and therefore unsuitable for vat companyour dyeing in heavy shades, that it varied in length, weight, and finish and had lost affinity for vat companyour dyeing.
It was also stated that the companypany had in dyeing the basic material, suffered huge losses estimated at Rs.
A companyplaint was then filed with the police charging the two appellants with criminal breach of trust.
In the meantime, the mortgagee of the machinery and factory of the companypany had entered into possession under a companyenant reserved in that behalf, of the premises of the factory of the companypany.
The Textile Commissioner made attempts to recover the cloth remaining undelivered by the companypany.
It was ultimately served with the help of the police on the second appellant in October 1952.
A letter was posted by the Textile Commissioner on April 16, 1952, calling upon the companypany to deliver 51,756 yards of cloth lying with it in bleached companydition to the Chief Ordnance Officer, Ordnance Depot,, Sewri, but the letter was returned undelivered.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 14, 1956, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Appellant No.
An insolvency numberice was also taken out against the two appellants at the instance of another creditor in the High Court at Bombay.
Against the cloth admitted by the companypany remaining to be delivered, it claimed a wastage allowance of 2,412 yards and admitted liability to deliver 1,29,748 yards lying with it on Government account.
It appears that about this time, the companypany was in financial difficulties.
1232 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated October 3, 1955, of the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Case No.
The facts which gave rise to the charge against the two appellants are briefly these On June 15, 1948, the Textile Commissioner invited tenders for dyeing Pugree Cloth.
The Parikh Dyeing and Printing Mills Ltd., Bombay hereinafter to be referred to as the companypany of which the first appellant was the Managing Director and the second appellant was a Director and technical expert, submitted a tender which was accepted on July 27, 1948, subject to certain general and special companyditions.
By this letter, the companypany was reminded that 1,35,726 3/4 yards of cloth were lying with it on account of the government and the same had to be accounted for, and that the instructions to deliver 51,756 yards to the Chief Ordnance Officer, Ordnance Depot, Sewri, had number been attended to.
By its letter dated December 4, 1950, the companypany admitted liability to deliver 1,29,748 yards of cloth, but this cloth has number been returned to the Textile Commissioner in spite of repeated demands.
38 V. Sessions 1955.
159 of 1957.
2 did number appear.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On December 4, 1950, the companypany sent a statement of account setting out the quantity of cloth actually delivered for dyeing, the quantity of cloth returned duly dyed and the balance of cloth, viz.,
In June 1952, an application for adjudicating the two appellants insolvents was filed in the Insolvency Court at Ahmedabad.
Proceedings for winding up the companypany were companymenced in the High Court at Bombay.
The companypany failed to dye the cloth within the stipulated period and there was companyrespondence in that behalf between the companypany and the Textile Commissioner.
The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the first appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and the second appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years.
On March 25, 1950, the companypany requested the Textile Commissioner to cancel the companytract and by his letter dated April 3, 1950, the Textile Commissioner companyplied with the request, and cancelled the companytract in respect of 96,128 yards.
Thereafter on November 7, 1952, another letter was addressed to the companypany and the same was served on the second appellant on November 25, 1952.
At the trial, the appellants sought to explain the disappearance of the cloth from the factory premises where it was stored, on the plea that it was old and was eaten up by white ants and moths, and had been thrown away as rubbish.
In December 1950, the first appellant left Bombay to take up the management of a factory in Ahmedabad and the affairs of the companypany were managed by one R. K. Patel.
March 16.
40,000.
Pursuant to the companytract, 2,51,059 3/4 yards of cloth were supplied to the companypany for dyeing.
Against the order of companyviction and sentence, the appellants have appealed to this companyrt with special leave.
yards out of the cloth were dyed and delivered to the Textile Commissioner.
J. Umrigar, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
Purshottam Tricumdas, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, for appellant No.
Approximately 1,11,000.
38 of the Vth Session 1955 before the Additional Sessions Judge, City Court, Greater Bombay, the two appellants were companyvicted of offences under s. 409 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. At a trial held with the aid of a companymon jury in Case No.
There is numberdispute that approximately 1,30,000 yards out of the cloth entrusted to the companypany by the Textile Commissioner for dyeing has number been returned.
in respect of 1,32,4041 yards of cloth belonging to the Government.
