1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.
In the result, they companyfirmed the companyvictions and sentences of accused Nos.
Nag left the place, Lawrence told Maj.
1 Major E. G. Barsay, when officiating as Chief Ordnance Officer, D. U. V. and you accused No.
5, Ramchand Pahlajrai Gangawani, and you accused No.
81 of 1960 challenging the companyrectness of the order of acquittal made in respect of accused Nos.
Barsay told Lawrence that he had become apprehensive of the scheme succeeding, as he had seen the Station Commandants car near the Barrack Office and, therefore, he told him number to take out the vehicle till that car had gone out.
Avatar singh, accused No.
The charges are That you accused No.
On the evening of December 19, 1954, Lawrence went to the house of Saighal and the latter showed him the spot where the stores were to be transshipped.
17 and once the board started functioning there would be shuttle of trucks moving from Shed No.
At about 10 a.m., Maj.
4, S. Saighal, released Lt.
These two, postings were made by accused No.
1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6 and the absconding accused Khemchand Ramchand Gangawani, in pursuance of the abovesaid companyspiracy, jointly and in furtherance of the companymon intention of all of you, did by companyrupt or illegal means by abusing their position as public servants, obtained for yourselves or for any other persons, the valuable things in the form of Military Stores detailed out in Schedule A appended herewith, and this act companystitutes an offence under Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, punishable under Section 5 2 of the said Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance.
Kochhar and Lawrence then went to Shed No.
Kochhar reported to the companyspirators that he had briefed Jamadar Kundanlal, and Lawrence told them that, as per Kochhars suggestion, he had already detailed Jamadar Kundanlal on day duty at the main gate during the next week.
On December 18, 1954, a meeting took place at Maj.
Rao when he had gone to Delhi on some temporary duty for ten days from November 20, 1954 to November 30, 1954.
4 and 5 were friends and they were also partners along with one Bhagwan Parshuram of Bombay in The Bombay Lonavala Disposal Syndicate.
4, Saighal, agreed to keep a lorry and some laborers present near his bungalow for transshipping the stores.
That you accused Nos.
At that meeting the details of working out the plan to be carried out on December 20, 1954, were finalized.
Kochhar, the second accused, who was in charge of the Fit Park, proceeded on two months leave of absence with effect from October 25, 1954, but he was recalled by accused No.
and the absconding accused Khemchand and two others started transhipping the stores from the military lorry to the civilian lorry.
Barsay, he was to appoint a board of officers for itemization of Specialist Boxed Kits in Shed No.
Accused No.
Nag and Lawrence to his office and, in the presence of Maj.
2 and 3.
Kochhar agreed to prepare a bogus voucher on Monday December 20, 1954 morning, and Lawrence undertook to provide a bogus gate pass.
4, W. S. Saighal, released Lt.
Appeal by special leave, from the judgment and order dated July 27, 1957, of the Bombay High Court, in Criminal Appeals Nos.
Truck No.
4, they accepted the finding of the learned Special Judge, as independent acceptable evidence companyroborated the evidence of Lawrence in respect of this accused.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 27, 1957, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Barsay and Kochhar near, Shed No.
The accused preferred five appeals to the High Court against their companyvictions and sentences.
Nag to Lawrence to go to Dehu Ordnance Depot O.D. and get the fire hoses which were sent there for repairs.
BYL 3289 kept ready by accused Nos.
3, who was working in the Unfit Sub Park, was transferred to the Kit Stores by accused No.
6, Deviprasad Ramchand Gangawani, did on 20th of December 1954, dishonestly or fraudulently his.
He gave varying sentences of imprisonment and fine to the accused.
1 and was put in charge of kit stores in the Depot.
3, Avatarsingh Seva Singh, Civilian Store Keeper, and you accused No.
Accused Nos.
5 and 6 were companycerned, they found the evidence to be very weak and therefore set aside the companyvictions and sentences passed against them.
Barsay, being the next in companymand, was naturally to succeed him as Chief Ordnance Officer of the Depot during the absence on leave of Col.
254 of 1957.
Barsay had sent a chit to him asking him to send Lawrence to the bungalow of Maj.
nance Officer, and you accused No.
92/7 on the Poona Bombay Road.
48 and was told by Maj.
Barsays bungalow and accused Nos.
81 of 1960 .
3, Avatar Singh, to load the stores from Shed No.
appropriate with a companymon intention or companyvert for your own use Government property in the form of Military Stores described in detail in Schedule A appended herewith, entrusted to or under the companytrol of the first three accused, namely, Major E. G. Barsay, H. S. Kochhar and Avatarsingh Seva Singh, who were public servants and thereby companymitted an offence under Section 5 1 c , punishable under section 5 2 , of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance.
6, Devichand, and one Khemchand, who is absconding, are sons of accused No.
Kapoor was frequently visiting the scene of itemization.
2 of 1958 .
Pratap Singh was the Security Officer in the Depot but, during the period in question, one Lawrence was acting as the Security Officer in place of Capt.
As some argument was made on the basis of the charges, it would be companyvenient at this stage to read the charges framed by the Special Judge, Poona.
5, Ramchand Gangwani, was a refugee from Sind and he was running a hotel at Lonnavala.
According to the plan chalked out by Maj.
Kochhar told Avatarsingh that he had number prepared any voucher as it was number necessary.
That would enable accused No.
2, who was on leave from October 25, 1954, was recalled to duty by accused No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. These two appeals one filed by accused No.
After Maj.
Thereafter, after taking his dinner, Lawrence went to the Depot at 9 p.m. The Orderly Officer at the Depot, one Shrinivasan, informed Lawrence that Jamadar Kundanlal, who was to have been on duty at the main gate on December 20, 1954, was sick and had taken 3 days leave of absence on medical grounds and that Maj.
81 of 1960.
Nag to his office on December 20, 1954 and issue orders in the presence of Maj.
He held that accused Nos.
H. Chhatrapati, Ravindra Narain, O. C. Mathur and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
6, Deviprasad Ramchand Gangawani and the absconding accused Khemchand between about October 1954 and December 1954 were parties to a criminal companyspiracy at Dehu Road area by agreeing to do certain illegal acts to wit Firstly, dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriate or otherwise companyvert to your own use the Military Stores lying in the Vehicle Depot, Dehu Road and which was entrusted or was in charge of Major E. G. Barsay, H. S. Kochhar, and Avatarsingh Seva Singh and which was also under their companytrol, as public servants Secondly, to obtain by companyrupt or illegal means for yourselves or for any other persons such stores which amounts to abusing their position as public servants i.e., the companyconspirators Thirdly, to companymit illegal acts of companymitting theft or receiving of stolen property and the above said illegal acts were done in pursuance of the said agreement and that you have thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance.
3, was present.
2, 3, 5 and 6, but companyfirmed those of accused Nos.
But, for one reason or other, it companyld number be pushed through during those days, as Capt.
2, H. S. Kochhar, when posted as Civilian Group Officer, D. U. V., and you accused No.
2, H. S. Kochbar, Civilian Group Officer, D. U. V., and you accused No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
2 and 3.
255 and 257 of 1957.
Barsay.
That you accused Nos.
17 where Avatarsingh was present, and Avatarsingh got the truck loaded and handed over the bogus gate pass and the duty slip of the vehicle to Ramban, and he also asked Lawrence to get into the truck there itself instead of near the main gate as per the plan.
2 of 1958 against his companyviction and sentence passed by the High Court and the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.
On December 20, 1954, at about 9.15 a.m. Maj.
Barsay was acting as the Chief Ordnance Officer of the Depot.
Accused No.
3, Avatarsingh, was working in the Unfit Sub Park, and he too was shifted from there to the Kit Stores on or about November 22, 1954.
As Jamadar Jogendrasingh refused to accept the gate pass to be produced by the driver and pass out the vehicle without making an entry regarding the same in the Vehicles In and Out Register, Lawrence gave him a written order to that effect with instructions number to show or hand over that written order to anybody except himself on his return or to Maj.
42, the duty slip, were number entered by Avatarsing.
He found ample evidence and circumstances companyroborating the evidence of Lawrence.
and you, accused No.
1 and posted as officer in charge of Kit Stores on November 25, 1954.
Barsay that Jamadar Kundanlal had reported himself to be sick and had taken leave of absence and that one Godse was at the main gate.
WITH Criminal Appeal No.
7 The words D. O. D. in Ex.
The accused entered into a companyspiracy to smuggle out some of the said stores and to make an illegal gain by selling them at Bombay through accused No.
17 where Avatarsingh, accused No.
At about 11 a.m. Lawrence met Maj.
Havaldar Pillay did accordingly.
The plan chalked out to implement the object of the companyspiracy may be briefly stated.
After Lawrence got into the truck, it proceeded towards the main gate at about 1.40 p.m. At the main gate, Ramban gave the duty slip of the vehicle and also the bogus gate pass to Jamadar Jogendrasingh and the latter told Lawrence that Maj.
Nag, he issued orders to Lawrence to go to Dehu Ordnance Depot D.O.D. personally and get the fire hoses.
5, Ramchand Pahalajrai Gangawani, and you accused No.
2 a few days later.
So far as accused Nos.
At a spot near Talegaon there was a civilian lorry bearing No.
Lawrence went to the bungalow of Maj.
4, Saighal, was an Ex Col.
Barsay, but companyld number meet him and then Lawrence went to the residence of Jamadar Kundanlal and tried to persuade him to attend to his duty at the main gate on December 20, 1954.
The two lorries were parked back to back, and accused No.
Kochhar, accused No.
and was at one time the Station Commandant of the Depot after retirement he had been staying in a bungalow at a short distance from mile No.
Accused No.
48 of Kit Stores which were unitemized and unaccounted for in the books of the Depot.
Rao was to proceed on leave sometime in December 1954 and Maj.
The smuggling of the goods out of the Depot was there fore arranged to take place during the period when Maj.
Rao went on leave from December 11, 1954.
1 to 4 and Lawrence attended that meeting.
Barsay called Maj.
In the meanwhile, Lawrence went to the Depot and asked Godse to take over at the Unfit Sub Park gate and he ordered Jamadar Jogendrasingh to take over from Godse at the main gate.
At that stage, the police officers appeared at the scene and prevented further fulfilment of the plan of the accused.
Accused No.
Lawrence had brought an old gate pass with him and he handed over the same to Avatarsingh.
Barsay agreed to get a driver of his companyfidence detailed on one of the trucks to be allotted to the Kit Stores and he offered to give orders to Kochhar on the morning of December 20, 1954, in the presence of all, to transfer the itemized kits to Shed No.
On the night of December 1, 1954, there was a theft of various articles in the Unfit Park of the Depot.
There were large companysignments of Kits in Shed No.
Barsay also undertook to call Maj.
1 during the absence on leave of Col.
April 24.
The prosecution case may be briefly stated.
Pratap Singh.
Lawrence, ignoring the said directions, took the vehicle out of the gate.
2 of 1958.
Barsay suggested to Lawrence that 26 Jamadar Jogendrasingh may be put at the main gate in place of Godse, and he informed him that he had fixed upon Ramban as the driver of the vehicle in which the stores were to be smuggled out.
1, Major Barsay, Officiating Chief Ord.
Accused No.
The brain behind the companyspiracy was accused No.
1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, along with the absconding accused, Khemchand Ramchand Gangawani, did on 20th of December 1954, in pursuance of the abovesaid companyspiracy jointly and in furtherance of the companymon intention of all of you, dishonestly or fraudulently remove the Military stores described in detail in Schedule A appended herewith from the Dehu Road Depot and this act companystitutes an offence punishable either under Section 381 or 411 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance.
1 called in Lawrence, the acting Security Officer, ostensibly to discuss with him certain matters regarding the theft.
1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6 and another Khemchand Ramchand Gangawani , between about October 1954 and December 1954 in pursuance of the abovesaid companyspiracy jointly and in furtherance of the companymon intention of all of you, you accused No.
1 in Criminal Appeal No.
4, 5 and 6 for transhipping the stores, and to that place the truck was driven.
Barsay had left a message for him number to do it on that day.
That you accused Nos.
1 and 4.
and you accused No.
1 was companyfirmed by accused No.
81 of 1960 .
Lawrence agreed and went to Shed No.
1 and setting aside the companyvictions and sentences of accused Nos.
At about 1 p.m. Maj.
One Capt.
The High Court held that the said facts found on independent evidence did number implicate the said accused in the offence and they were all companysistent with his innocence.
After companysidering the entire evidence, he came to the following companyclusion The above discussion of the evidence on record and the circumstances in the case makes it abundantly clear that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every one of these six accused did companymit overt acts in furtherance of the criminal companyspiracy alleged against them.
The first trip was to be of ordinary stores in which the companyspirators were number interested and the second trip was to be of valuable stores which were to be smuggled out of the gate.
26 ostensibly for the purpose of companyditioning and preservation.
Barsay that the scheme was to proceed according to schedule.
1 by certificate and the other filed by the State of Maharashtra by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of accused No.
K. Khanna and D. Gupta, for the respondent in Criminal Appeal 2 of 1958 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
Sindhi, the Station Commandant, and Brig.
1 to 6 were guilty of the principal offence charged against them and companyvicted all of them under s. 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with B. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
D. 5963 was, in the first instance, loaded with ordinary stores and was sent to Shed No.
3, Avatarsingh Seva Singh, then working as Civilian Stores Keeper, D. U. V., and you accused No.
1 to 3.
81 of 1960 .
In the words of the learned Special Judge, Shri Lawrences evidence can, therefore, be accepted and relied upon, only if it is companyroborated by other independent evidence and circumstances in the case.
2 in Criminal Appeal No.
Ram Lal Anand and S. N. Anand, for respondent No.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court which heard the appeals set aside the companyviction of accused Nos.
Barsay called Havaldar Pillay to his office and asked him to allot a new vehicle to the Kit Stores and to detail driver Ramban on that vehicle.
The Special Judge, on a companysideration of the evidence, held that all the charges were made out against the accused.
S. Gheba, for respondent No.
He rejected the technical objections raised in regard to the framing of the charges, the validity of the investigation made by the investigating officer and the sanction given by the Central Government for the prosecution of the accused, and came to the companyclusion that prima facie there was numbergood ground to discard the evidence of Lawrence, but he placed the said evidence in the category of interested evidence and required independent companyroboration before acceptance.
It is a further case of the prosecution that Lawrence ostensibly joined the companyspiracy with a view to bring to book the culprits and was informing the superior officers and the police orally and in writing from time to time as and when the important events were taking place.
4 died after the appeal was disposed of by the High Court.
Accused No.
1 and 4, and set aside those of accused Nos.
