TUISI RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

LAWS(SC)-1962-9-21

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)

Decided on September 27,1962

TUISI RAM Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

Cited Judgements :-

SANJAY PANDEY VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
SARDUL SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1966-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH SHIVPUJAN DUBEY VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1998-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
R.N.TANDON VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
D. SURYA RAO VS. LIAQUAT ALI KHAN [LAWS(ORI)-1973-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH GURBAXANI VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(P&H)-2021-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESHKUMAR BABULAL PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1980-12-4] [REFERRED]
ANNA REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2002-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI NARESH GUPTA VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
E S SANJEEVA RAO VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(BOM)-2012-5-88] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ARUNKUMAR HIRJI SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-1999-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
MANIKRAJ DEVRAJ MOHARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH JAISWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-131] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
P B PARDASANI VS. STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1965-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH DUBEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1998-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
E KESAVAN VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS PROSECUTION PREVENTIVE DEPARTMENT CUSTOMS HOUSE MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1986-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. POPAT PANACHAND SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
P MADAN MOHAN RAO VS. STATE OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2006-9-178] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN SINGH JOHAL VS. STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1968-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD DOSHI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1989-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
HATIRAM NAIK VS. SURENDRA KUMAR MALLIK [LAWS(ORI)-1985-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM MOHAMMAD NAIKOO VS. ABDUL QAYOOM WANI [LAWS(J&K)-2022-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2000-1-25] [REFERRED]
DASARI VENKATA SRINIVASA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
DEVDUTT KISHORILAL PANDIT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1969-7-10] [REFERRED]
G P SIPPI VS. VIJAI KUMAR SHUKLA [LAWS(ALL)-1978-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-311] [REFERRED TO]
SAILA BEHARI CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1965-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1996-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
LOHIDASAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCIW CID COIMBATORE CITY UNIT COIMBATORE DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-238] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANJI BAWANJI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1970-2-4] [REFERRED]
MALTYA MICHARA GAVIT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
PINKY DUTTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER [LAWS(GAU)-2017-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT VS. B V MURALIDHAR RAO [LAWS(APH)-2004-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
SAMBANDHAM VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2000-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA STOKES VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-1993-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADISH NANGINENI VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(P&H)-2021-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
SWAROOP RAM VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1963-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
TARAK NATH GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. FERTICO MARKETING AND INVESTMENT PVT , LTD , VS. CBI, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMVIR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1978-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. JAGDISH PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-1989-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD VS. SHEKHAR HOUSING PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2009-2-40] [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

J.R.Mudholkar, J. - (1.)These are appeals by a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad. They arise out of the same trial. The appellants in both the appeals except Chandrika Singh were convicted by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, of offences under Section 471, Indian Penal Code read with Sections 467 and 468, l P. C. and sentenced variously. Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal and Babu Lal were each convicted of offences under Section 417 read with Section 420 and Moti Lal of offences under Section 417, Indian Penal Code and Lachhmi Narain of offences under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. Separate sentences were awarded to each of them in respect of these offences. All the six appellants were, in addition, convicted under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code and sentenced separately in respect of that offence. In appeal the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences passed on Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal, Babu Lal and Moti Lal of offences under Section 471 read with Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code and also acquitted Moti Lal of the offence under Section 417, Indian Penal Code. It, however, upheld the conviction of all the appellants under Section 120 B, Indian Penal Code as well as the conviction of Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal and Babu Lal of offences under Section 417 read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code. As regards Lachhmi Narain it maintained the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in all respects and dismissed the appeal in toto. The relevant facts are as follows :-
(2.)The appellants, other than Chandrika Singh are members of a Marwari trading family belonging to Rae Bareli and Chandrika Singh was their employee, the relationship amongst Lachhmi Narain and the first four appellants in Cri. A. 62 of 1958 would be clear from the following genealogical table : JUDGEMENT_666_AIR(SC)_1963Image1.jpg
(3.)It is common ground that Lachhmi Narain was the karta of the family and the entire business of the family was done under his directions and supervision. This fact is material in view of the defence taken by the first four appellants in Cri. A. 62 of 1958.

Click here to view full judgement.