P L D 1952 Dacca 141 (PLP)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 196‑A‑Cons piracy to commit criminal breach of trust punishable under S. 406, P. P. C. involving the commission as modus operandi of offences under Ss. 7 and 8 of Act XXIV of 1946 viz., failure to keep stock‑book by the licensee, and of falsification of accounts, punishable under S. 477‑A, P. P. C.‑Only latter offence non cognisable‑Sanction unnecessary. It is true that one of the objects, namely, falsification of accounts is a non‑cognisable offence and of course if a charge was framed in respect only of "falsification of account", and on no other offence, provisions of section 196‑A would be attracted. But in this case the accused is charged of having committed various offences in course of committing breach of trust. It will be noticed from the charge that the object was to commit criminal breach of trust and in order to commit such an offence, the modus operandi of the accused was such as to bring him within the mischief of the other provisions of Pakistan Penal Code. So, it cannot be said that the object of conspiracy to commit breach of trust cannot be separated from others for the latter were only means to an end. The charge which the accused was called upon to meet was one of criminal breach of trust notwithstanding whatever the means may have been employed to effect that object. If criminal breach of trust is carried out by other means indicated in the charge, it does not follow that the provisions of section 196‑A would apply. There is difference between the object of a conspiracy and the means adopted to achieve that object. Hanumantha Rao and others v. Emperor A t R 1934 Mad. 88 ; Bishombhar Nath Tandon, Rai Sahib and others v. King Emperor A I R 1926 Oudh 161 ; Ramchandra Rango v. Emperor A I R 1939 Bom. 129 ; Paresh Nath v. King Emperor A I R 1947 Cal. 32 ; Golam Rahman and others v. The King 83 C L J 397 ; Gokulchand Dwarikadas Morarka v. The King Emperor 52 C W N 325 (P C) ref: (b) Criminal Procedure Cod (V of 1898), Ss. 222 (2), 234 Separate charges in same trial of conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust under S. 120‑B, P. P. C., and breach of trust made up of various criminal acts‑‑Held, same transaction‑No misjoinder. Besides the straight charge under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code, there was also a separate charge of a comprehensive nature relating to criminal conspiracy. The subsequent series of acts of misappropriation forming the subject of separate charges under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code were so connected together as to form the same transaction within the meaning of section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Held that the main object of conspiracy is stated in the first charge. All subsequent acts are only done in pursuance of that conspiracy which is the main link which connects all these acts and makes them part of one transaction. There was no misjoinder of charges offending against the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor could it be said that the plurality of charges caused bewilderment and prejudice to the petitioners. Babulal Choukhani v. King Emperor 42 C W N 621 rel. Ramdayal Prasad v. Syed Hasan A I R 1944 Pat. 135 inapplicable. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406‑Accused buying cloth with their own money as licensees of the Government Civil Supply Department‑As licensees bound to distribute cloth to permit‑holders according to direction of Civil Supply Depart ment‑Accused held, trustees of goods and not owners‑Criminal breach of trust. A certain quantity of cloth was allotted to the Syndicate to be distributed to the permit‑holders according to the directions of the Civil Supplies Department. Their use could not be made in any other way except for the benefit of those consumers who were given permits for the purchase of the same and on whose behalf the firm was entrusted with the goods. The petitioners, therefore, received the cloths under certain restricted conditions and it is fallacious to argue that they possessed it as absolute owners. The petitioners were trustees of the goods and could not be regarded as owners. The stock entrusted to accused‑petitioners having been found short, they were held guilty of having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of these goods entrusted to them. Sultanuddin Ahmed, Deputy Legal Remembrancer with S. A. Maquith Chowdhury, for the Crown.