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.