http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: N.M. PARTHASARATHY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE BY S.P.E.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/01/1992

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 SCR  (1) 249        1992 SCC  (2) 198  JT 1992 (1)   249        1992 SCALE  (1)104

ACT:            Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 420. 120-B            and 109.            Criminal   conspiracy-Small   Scale    Industries Registration   Certificate,  Essentiality  Certificate   and Import   Licence   obtained   by   false    representations- Prosecution-Conviction    by    Trail    Court-High    Court reappreciating evidence and finding that the only conclusion possible  was guilt of the accused which was  proved  beyond reasonable  doubt-Reversal  of acquittal and  conviction  of accused  by High court-Held High Court was justified in  its conclusion.      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 360-Probation.      Accused-Conviction  under sections 420 and 120-B,  IPC- Several  achievements  in  the  industrial  field  made   by accused-Held  in  the  circumstances  benefit  of  probation should be extended.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant, (first accused), a former Inspector  of Industries,  alongwith an Inspector of  Industries,  (second accused),  was  prosecuted  under section  120-B  read  with section  420  IPC,  sections  5(1)  (b)  and  5(2)  of   the Prevention  of Corruption Act, 1947 on the ground that  both the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and acting in concert,   the  first  accused  obtained  the  Small   Scale Industries Registration Certificate for additional lines  of manufacture, Essentiality Certificate and Import Licences on false  representations while the second accused enabled  him to  obtain the same by his false recommendations. The  Trial Court  acquitted both of them on all the charges. The  State filed  an  appeal  before  the  High  Court  which  on   re- appreciation  of  evidence  held that  the  prosecution  has established  conspiracy  beyond  doubt  and  that  only  one conclusion was possible on the evidence that the accused are guilty  of  all the charges. Accordingly it  set  aside  the acquittal  and convicted both the accused on all the  counts and  sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for  two  years under  section  120-B, and for two years under  section  420 IPC.      In  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf  of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

                                                 250 appellant-accused   that:  (i)  the  High  Court  erred   in reversing  the  judgment  of acquittal passed  by  the  High Court;  and (ii) the benefit of probation under section  360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be extended to  the appellant.      Disposing the appeal, this Court,      HELD:  The  High  Court  was right  in  coming  to  the conclusion   that  the  guilt  against  the  appellant   was established  beyond doubt. Accordingly, the  conviction  and the sentence awarded by the High Court is upheld. [251 G 253 B]      The occurrence relates to the period between  February, 1967  and  February,  1969. The Trial  Court  acquitted  the appellant  while  High  Court  reversed  the  acquittal  and convicted them. This Court granted bail to the appellant  in 1980.  Since then the appellant has several achievements  to his  credit in the industrial field. Therefore, this  is  a fit case where benefit of probation under section 360 of the Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be extended to  the appellant. [253 C-E]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal. Appeal  No. 330 of 1980.      From  the  judgement and Order dated  3.4.1980  of  the Madras High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 360 of 1974.      Hardev  Singh  and  Ms.  Madhu  Moolchandani  for   the Appellants.      V.C. Mahajan, B. Parthasarthi and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KULDIP  SINGH, J. The appellant N.M.  Parthasarathy  is the  sole proprietor of a firm called "Elector-technik".  He was  formerly working as Inspector of Industries.  He  along with  an  Inspector  of Industries, was  prosecuted  on  the allegations  that between February, 1967 and February,  1969 they  entered  into a criminal conspiracy  to  obtain  Small Scale  Industries  Registration Certificate  for  additional lines  of manufacture, Essentiality Certificate  and  import licences  on false representations made to the  Director  of Industries,  Assistant Director of Industries,  Joint  Chief Controller  of  Imports/Exports  and  the  Iron  and   Steel Controller.The first                                                     251 charge  framed  against both of them was for an  offence  of conspiracy punishable under section 120-B read with  section 420  IPC and section 5(1) (b) read with section 5(2) of  the Prevention  of  Corruption  Act, 1947. Charges 2,  4  and  6 framed  against him were for offence of cheating  punishable under  section  420  IPC. Charges 3, 5  and  7  were  framed against   the  second  accused  for  abetment  of   cheating punishable under section 420 read with section 109 IPC.  The 8th charge was also against the second accused under section 5  (1)  (b)  read with section 5 (2) of  the  Prevention  of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial court acquitted both of them on  all the charges.  The State went in appeal  against  the judgment of acquittal and the High Court on  re-appreciation of  evidence  set side the acquittal and convicted  both  of them  on  all the counts.  The appellant  was  sentenced  to undergo  rigorous imprisonment for two years  under  Section 120-B  IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for  each of the three counts of cheating under section 420 IPC.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

sentences were to run concurrently.      We have heard Mr. Hardev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant  and  Mr. V.C. Mahajan, Senior  Advocate  for  the respondents.  Mr.  Hardev  Singh has taken  us  through  the judgment of the trial court and that of the High Court.  Mr. Hardev  Singh has primarily argued that the High  Court  has grossly  erred  in  reversing  the  judgment  of   acquittal rendered  by the trial court.  According to him even if  two views  were  possible the High Court was  not  justified  in taking  a different view than the trial court and  reversing the acquittal.  This precise argument was raised before  the High  Court  on  behalf of the  appellant.  The  High  Court rejected the same as under:-          "In  the  circumstances, I am of the  opinion  that          this is not a case where, on the evidence available          on   record,  two  conclusions  are  possible   and          therefore  this Court could not interfere with  the          acquittal  of  the accused by the  learned  Special          Judge.    I  am  of  the  opinion  that  only   one          conclusion  is possible on the evidence  on  record          and  that it is that the accused are guilty of  all          the   charges   framed  against   them   and   that          interference  with the acquittal of the accused  by          the  learned  Special Judge is called for  in  this          case."      We are of the view that the High Court was justified in reaching the above conclusion.  The High Court examined  the evidence  on  the record in detail and rightly came  to  the conclusion   that  the  guilt  against  the  appellant   was established beyond reasonable doubt.      The  High  Court on re-appreciation  of  the  evidence, independently reached the following findings:-                                                   252          "Thus it is established by Exhibit D-36 as well  as          the evidence of P.Ws 3 and 6 that the first accused          had   only  a  single-phase  domestic   supply   of          electricity  at  his premises in  Katpadi Extension          even  in August, 1969, that he could not have  used          that  supply  of electricity validly for  any  non-          domestic purposes and that it would not  have  been          possible  to produce any industrial machinery  with          that single  phase power."          "The evidence of P.W.s 6, 13, 15 and 19 shows  that          the  machinery  found in the premises  of  Electro-          technic  during their inspections were  worth  only          about Rs. 9,200 or Rs. 10,000 and not of the  value          of  Rs. 94,000 as represented by the first  accused          in  the  list  submitted  by  him  along  with  his          application, Exhibit P-18."          "It has already been found that with the  230-Volts          domestic  supply he could not have produced any  of          the new  end-products.   The  additional  machinery          required  for producing these new end-products  had          not been installed in the first accused’s  factory.          It is hardly likely that all the alleged additional          machinery could have been installed in the  factory          whose dimensions are only 18 feet by 12 feet."          "It  is made clear by the evidence that the  second          accused  had made false statements in Exhibit  P-96          about  the alleged installation of  the  additional          items of machinery in the first accused’s  factory.          For  the  reasons  stated above  I  find  that  the          prosecution   has   proved   charges   2   and    3          satisfactorily, beyond all reasonable doubt."          "The  first accused has succeeded in obtaining  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

        Essentiality  Certificate, Exhibit P.5,  by  making          these false representations and the 2nd accused has          induced  P.W.5  to recommend in  Exhibit  P.24  the          issue of the Essentiality Certificate and P.W.12 to          issue the Essentiality Certificate and Exhibit P-14          by  making the false representations  Exhibit  P-22          and P-23, as in Exhibit P-19, which have been found          to  be false in the earlier part of  his  judgment.          Therefore,  I find that the prosecution has  proved          these  two  charges  4 and 5  against  the  accused          satisfactorily and beyond all reasonable doubt."          "In the present case both the accused have acted in          concert  in the first accused obtaining the  S.S.I.          registration  certificate, Exhibit P-20 as  amended          by  Exhibit  P-21,  the  Essentiality  Certificate,          Exhibit  P-5 and the import licenses, Exhibits  P-6          and  P-7,  and the second accused enabling  him  to          obtain the                                                   253          same  by his recommendations, Exhibits  P-19,  P-22          and  P-23  which contain  false  particulars.  This          would  show  that both the accused  have  acted  in          concert for committing these offences and that they          would  not  have  done  so if  there  had  been  no          conspiracy.  In these circumstances I find that the          prosecution   has   established   the   charge   of          conspiracy   framed   against  both   the   accused          satisfactorily and beyond reasonable doubt."      We  agree  with  the above  quoted  reasoning  and  the conclusions  reached  by  the High  Court.   We,  therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court.      While upholding the judgment of the High Court, we  are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that this is fit case where benefit of section 360, Criminal Procedure Code be extended to the appellant.  The occurrence in  this case relates to the period between  February,  1967 and  February,  1969.   The Special  Judge,  Madras  by  his judgment  dated July 23, 1973 acquitted the appellant.   The High  Court  on April 3, 1980 reversed the trial  court  and convicted  the  appellant.  This Court granted bail  to  the appellant  on April 29, 1980.  Mr. Hardev Singh  has  placed before  us  documents showing several  achievements  of  the appellant   in  the  industrial  field  since   then.    The appellant’s  industry has manufactured the  largest  Hot-Air Kiln  in India for Ministry of Railways, largest  Degreasing plant  for  Nuclear  Fuel  Complex,  Sintering  Furnace  for anti tank missiles and various other items for the  Ministry of Defence and other Departments of the Government of India. The appellant claims that he has set up 100 per cent  export unit  with  Rs. 75 crores export per annum.  For  all  these reasons  we  are of the view that it is expedient  that  the appellant  be released on probation.  We, therefore,  direct that  he  be  released on his entering into a  bond  to  the satisfaction  of  the Special Court,  Madras.   The  Special Court shall pass an order in terms of Section 360,  Criminal Procedure  Code, 1973 to its satisfaction.  A copy  of  this order be sent to the Special Court, Madras immediately.  The appellant  is directed to appear before the  Special  Court, Madras  within  two months from today to enable the  Special Court,  Madras to pass an order as directed by us.   In  the event  of appellant’s failure to present himself before  the Special  Court  as directed he shall  undergo  the  original sentence awarded by the High Court.      The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. T.N.A                                     Appeal disposed of.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

                                                      254