Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE­02, SOUTH­EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI State Vs : Sudershan and Anr FIR No : 2/98 U/s : 407 IPC PS : Okhla Industrial Area Date of Institution: 14.05.2003 Date of Judgment reserved for: 28.06.2013 Date of Judgment: 08.07.2013 Brief Details of the Case A. Sl. no. of the case 895/2/03 B. Offence complained of or proved U/s 407 IPC C. Date of Offence 28.11.1997 D. Name of the complainant Gurdeep Singh Sawhney c/o Ms Sawhney Exports C­13, Jalandhar, Punjab.

On the accusation of committing criminal breach of trust in respect of a consignment which was entrusted to accused Sudershan and Shyam Tiwari as drivers of truck bearing registration number DL­1GA­6744 and HR­36­3413, they were sent up for trial for committing offences punishable under Section 407/34 IPC.

Brief facts as unfolded during the trial

2. M/s Sawhney Exports was a firm dealing in export of hardware articles, nut bolts, screws and motor parts having it's office at Jalandhar, Punjab. It hired the services of M/s Budhiraj Goods Transport, Inland Container Depot (ICD), Tuglakabad for transporting an export consignment from it's office to ICD for onward shipment to the overseas buyer. On 25.11.1997, the consignment containing 1698 packets was loaded in two different trucks arranged by M/s Budhiraja Goods Transport. The accused persons, who were driving these trucks, delivered the consignment at ICD and it was shipped after being cleared by the clearing agent M/s Emm Ess Cargo Movers, New Delhi. On receiving a message from the buyer about shortage of around 495 packets, Sh Gurdeep Singh Sawhney (PW­4), authorised signatory of Sawhney motors, lodged a complaint with the local police station and present FIR bearing number 02/98 under Section 407/34 IPC was registered at PS­OIA.

9. On the other hand, Ld defence counsel has argued that there is not even an iota of evidence against either of the accused. Counsel has argued that identity of accused persons as the drivers of the trucks has also not been established. He has argued that the story of prosecution is doubtful and benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused persons.

Brief reasons for the decision

10. Let us peruse the record to see whether charge under Section 407/34 IPC has been substantiated. Section 407 IPC provides punishment to a person who while being entrusted with property as carrier commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property. Section 408 IPC provides punishment to a person who being employed as a servant commits criminal breach of trust in respect of property entrusted to him by his master. The ingredients of both the offences are almost similar. The criminal breach of trust has been defined under Section 405 IPC. The section provides that whosoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

18. In the light of discussions made in the abovestated paras, I have reached a conclusion that prosecution has measurably failed to prove charges against either of the accused. The entrustment part which is the foremost ingredient of an offence under Section­407 IPC has not been established. Although, witness who mentioned that consignment was entrusted to the accused persons as the drivers of the truck. This witness is not sure about the identity of the accused persons. The result is obvious. Both the accused persons stand acquitted of the charge under Section 407/34 IPC.