Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
Madan Lal Lamba vs Inderjit Mehta on 19 May, 1969 cites

Amrik Singh vs The State Of Pepsu on 28 February, 1955

14. The counsel for the petitioner principally relied on Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu reported in AIR 1955 SC 309 in support of his contention, whereas the counsel for the respondent placed reliance mainly on Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1966 SC 220. Both these decisions of the Supreme Court pertain to cases of breach of trust under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. In the earlier decision, the view taken was that a Sub-Divisional Officer, who had shown in the aquittance roll drawn up by him payment of Rs. 51.00 to a labourer and affixed his own thumb-impression purporting to be the thumb-impression of that labourer and misappropriated the amount himself, did so in the discharge of his official duty. In the latter case, in which a cashier instead of depositing certain items of money, which he had to deposit in the treasury, did not deposit the same and converted it to his own use, it was held that Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code did not apply as the act of misappropriation under Section 409, Indian Penal Code did not fall within the scope of his official duty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 243 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Baijnath Gupta And Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 1965

14. The counsel for the petitioner principally relied on Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu reported in AIR 1955 SC 309 in support of his contention, whereas the counsel for the respondent placed reliance mainly on Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1966 SC 220. Both these decisions of the Supreme Court pertain to cases of breach of trust under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. In the earlier decision, the view taken was that a Sub-Divisional Officer, who had shown in the aquittance roll drawn up by him payment of Rs. 51.00 to a labourer and affixed his own thumb-impression purporting to be the thumb-impression of that labourer and misappropriated the amount himself, did so in the discharge of his official duty. In the latter case, in which a cashier instead of depositing certain items of money, which he had to deposit in the treasury, did not deposit the same and converted it to his own use, it was held that Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code did not apply as the act of misappropriation under Section 409, Indian Penal Code did not fall within the scope of his official duty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 242 - A K Sarkar - Full Document
1   2 Next