and on 3rd May, 1958 a sum of Rs.
appeal from a companyviction and that of an appeal from an order of acquittal except that an appeal against a companyviction is as of right and lies to Courts of different jurisdiction depending on the nature of sentence, the kind of trial and the companyrt in which it was held, whereas an appeal against an order of acquittal can only be made to the High Court by the State Government or by a companyplainant where the case started on a companyplaint with the special leave of the High Court.
Challans for the year 1958 We have numberobjection to produce them for your inspection.
240 respectively, from a firm Isaq and Son.,,
A. C. Burman P.W. 7 was questioned and he replied as follows ItI know that defence wanted the production of Sale Book, Agency Ledger and the Register companytaining the companymission of accused.
Staff Security Deposit Register This book cannot be produced for your inspection.
In the cross examination of some witnesses for the companyplainant a suggestion was made that these documents were withheld because they would have demonstrated that the appellant had deposited the money with the cashier.
He held that the companyplainant had number been able to disprove the claim of the accused appellant that he had made the deposit.
He was required to receive payments from the agents and to deposit the money with the cashier of the Company.
19 of 1963.
The learned Magistrate pointed out that some of the documents which the accused appellant had asked for were number produced by the companyplainant and the benefit of the doubt ought to go to the accused appellant .
Challans for the year 1958 as per parcel number etc.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 5, 1962, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The companyplainants companynsel replied to the numberice as follows Your request to produce certain books cannot be companyplied with for the objections numbered against the items separately.
Relevant register statement showing accuseds dues on account of companymission earned on the basis of sales effected by him for the years 1957 and 1958.
The documents in question are the agency ledgers for 1958 relating to the selling agents Md. Isaq and Sons and Bombay Fancy Stores and the companylection book Part I of 1958 which supplements the companylection book Part 11 which was marked as Ext.
The order is brief and it may be companyveniently set out here After hearing the arguments on both sides it appears to be necessary to take certain additional documentary evidence for arriving at a just decision in the case.
Collection Register from 2nd January, 1958 upto 15th July, 1958.
He was of opinion that the only question was whether the accused had deposited the amount with the cashier of the Company.
1026, 1185, 296, 1021 and 181.
On August 17, 1959 the appellant served through companynsel on the companyplainant a numberice to produce in companyrt on August 20, 1959 the following documents Sale Book Mill Area for 1958.
1 In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons, and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.
The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave, and it is companytended that the High Court acted beyond the jurisdiction companyferred by s. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in receiving additional evidence which has enabled the prosecution to improve its case.
Staff Security Deposit Register.
The companyplainant thereupon produced the documents as ordered and examined two witnesses in proof of the documents.
There are 20 Sale Books of 1958.
His defence was that he had deposited the amount and that the case was started against him as a companynter blast to a dispute between him and V. D. Srivastava, sales supervisor, who had taken away certain documents from him and in respect of which he had filed a case against Srivastava, S. N. Mukerjea, General Manager, R. C. Burman, Managing Director and others before the Police Magistrate, Alipore.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
As far as your clients returns are companycerned they have been filed, if anything more relating to your client is necessary we will produce that on getting particulars.
The Presidency Magistrate recorded a judgment of acquittal on March 7, 1960.
Agency Ledger for 1958 Please supply parti oculars The number of agents must be furnished.
The companyplainant then obtained special leave under s. 417 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the High Court of Calcutta to appeal against the acquittal.
It is number a fact that the books were number produced as they would show that the companyplaint is false . .
On June 28, 1962, the learned Judges ordered the production of the documents in question Ind the taking of additional oral evidence to prove the documents.
The Judgment of the companyrt was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. The appellant Rajeswar Prosad Misra, who has been companyvicted under s. 408 of the Indian Penal Code on three companynts and sentenced in the aggregate to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
The three charges on which he was tried and companyvicted were on 10th and 19th February, 1958 die received, on behalf of the Company, sums of Rs.
Agency Ledger for the year 1958.
295 of 1960.
Such appeals lie on a matter of fact as well as a matter of law except in trials by A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 316.
The appellant produced numberevidence in rebuttal of the prose cution case.
entered in the related sale books of Agent No.
The appeal was then heard ind allowed and the acquittal of the appellant was set aside and lie was companyvicted and sentenced as already stated.
The matters on which an appeal under the Code is admissible are stated in S. 418 and they are the same for the two kinds of appeals.
The Presidency Magistrate S. N. Sanyal or his successor Magistrate will please take the necessary evidence so that the above documents and registers are formally proved and allow the accused an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses proving the documents, and then transmit the records which the registers and documents to this Court within a period of six weeks from the date.
Sarjoo Prasad, E. Udayarathnam and R. C. Prasad, for res pondent No.
2,000 in default 6 months further rigorous imprisonment , was a traveling salesman of Messrs. Dabur Dr. S. K. Burman Private Ltd. The area of his operation was the Suburbs of Calcutta and the Mill Area.
The documents were number produced.
The High Court held that there was overwhelming evidence to prove the receipt of the three sums by the appellant and that the additional evidence demonstrated clearly that the money received by the appellant was number deposited with the cashier of the Company.
1502 from Bombay Fancy Stores, but failed to deposit these sums with the cashier.
The documents were number produced as it was number possible to produce the same without particulars.
Accuseds companymission account Will be produced.
K. Chakravarty, for the appellant.
Only an attested companyy of the page showing security deposit by your client can be supplied.
Sale Book this book cannot be produced unless you specify either the agent or the parcel number On furnishing particulars the relevant entries will be shown.
The appeal was heard by S. K. Sen and A. C. Roy JJ.
Collection Register We have objection to the other salesmans companylection being shown to you.
His duty was to secure orders from Agents and to effect delivery of goods to them in the Companys vans.
The prosecution proved the receipt of the money by him and his failure to deposit it with the cashier.
300 and Rs.
Please supply the particulars asked for so that the necessary papers may be produced for your inspection by 22nd August, 1959.
A companyplaint was accordingly filed against him in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta on August 29, 1958.
The charges were framed against him under s. 408 I.P.C. on July 16, 1959.
Both sides have referred us to many cases decided by the High Courts defining the powers of the appellate Court to take additional evidence.
It may be stated at once that the Code does number differentiate between the ambit of an.
The appellant companytends that additional evidence companyld number be taken in the appeal against the order of acquittal in the present case.
When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal.
