PETITIONER: JAIKRISHNADAS MANOHARDASDESAI AND ANOTHER Vs.

RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF BOMBAY

DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT :16/03/1960

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

The first appellant and second appellant were managing director and director along
with cloth technician respectively, working in a cloth dyeing concern named Parikh
Dyeing And Printing Mills, Bombay. The company entered into a contract with the
Textile Commissioner, undertaking to dye a large quantity of cloth and to delivered
back to them, where the raw material will be provided to the company. The company
dyed and delivered the cloth but not the whole cloth which was supplied to them.
Even on receiving several letters from the textile commissioner,the appellants
remained silent on inquiry about the cloth that was undelivered. Textile commissioner
filed a suit.

ISSUES:-
1. Was there any misappropriation of the property?
2. Was there any breach of trust by the appellants?
3. Was there any ill intention present, to retain the undelivered cloth by the
appellants?

ARGUEMENTS BY APPELLANTS:-

1. There was no misappropriation of the property i.e of the cloth provided by the
respondent, as the appellants gave a justified reasoning behind the cloth which
remained undelivered.

2. There was no breach of trust by both appellants because the undelivered cloth was
destroyed by white ants and moths, which was unfit for dyeing and to be delivered.

3. The appellant no.1 is more punishable under the eyes of law, as he was the
managing director and appellant no. 2 was working under the strict instructions of the
appellant no.1 who was in Ahemdabad.

4. The appellants tried to settle the situation by compensating for the losses incurred
by the respondent for the destroyed cloth which remained undelivered. The appellants
asked the respondent to include the losses incurred by the appellants while dyeing the
delivered cloth.
5. As, the above mentioned issues were not justified on the appellant’s part, the
appellants plead to the judge to cut down the heavy imprisonment duration of five
years and four years respectively for both appellants.

ARGUEMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:-

1.As there was no record maintained for the sweepings which were made of the so
called “destroyed cloth by white moths and ants” , like the recordings maintained for
delivered and undelivered cloth in the store house, it clearly shows that appellants
have committed a misappropriation of the raw materials provided by the respondent.

2. The respondent wrote letters to these appellants in order to inquire about the cloth.
Yes, there was a breach of trust, because the appellants remained silent to the letters.

3. The appellants did not care much to return the not dyed cloth to deliver it back to
the respondent even after they were asked to do so. This proves their ill intention to
retain the not dyed and undelivered cloth with themselves.

4. The respondent was not informed about the cloth being destroyed by the white
moths and ants.

5.The appellants claimed that they incurred a loss of Rs. 40,000 while dyeing and
delivering the cloth which was sent. There was no evidence in support the cause of the
loss which they suffered during the dyeing.

JUDGMENT:-

The Supreme Court held that the appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2 were convicted
with the Section 34 i.e when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance
of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same
manner as if it were done by him alone( as both the appellants equally remained silent
to the letters of inquiry about the cloth and retained it) read with Section 403 i.e
dishonest misappropriation of property.—Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished( as the appellants
disposed the destroyed cloth without any notice to the respondent) , and also Section
409 i.e whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion
over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business,
commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished.

The court accordingly confirmed the conviction of the two appellants (the
judgment)was passed by the High Court before hand) but reduced the sentence passed
upon the first appellant to rigorous imprisonment for three years and the sentence
against the second appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
RATIO DECIDENDI:-

Judgment would have been more justified if, the honorable judges would have looked
into the matter deeply that while the appellants were not delivering the remaining
cloth, the government of India, was facing losses from other field. But these losses
may be would been balanced if, the undelivered cloth would have been used or sold to
earn profits was which wasn’t possible due to the unavailability of the desired dyed
cloth, which was again the fault of both the appellants. In order reduce the losses
incurred altogether, the honorable judges could have given the appellant no.1 one year
of imprisonment and appellant no.2 with six months of imprisonment, while both will
be compensating the respondent for the losses incurred because of their ill conduct.

THE END
KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW

SUBJECT: INDIAN PENAL CODE

A CASE ANALYSIS ON:-

Jai Krishna Das Manohar Desai and Another vs State
of Bombay

SUBJECT PROFESSOR:-
MR. SOUVIK ROY

SUBMITTED BY:-

TORSHA SAHA
ROLL NO. 1683113
B.A. LL.B (B)

__________________
(SIGNATURE OF PROFESSOR)