minal Appeal No 202 of 1962
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated August 1 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No 213 of 1961
W section Barlingay and A G Ratnaparkhi for the appellant
R Gopalakrishnan and B R G K Achar for the res pondent
April 1 1964
The Judgment of SUBBA RAO and DAS GUPTA JJ was delivered by DAs GUPTA J RAGHUBAR DAYAL J delivered a dissenting opinion
DAS GUPTA J
The appellant who was a registration clerk in the Haveri Post Office in the Mysore State was tried by the Sessions Judge Dharwar on charges under section 52 section 53 and section 55 of the Indian Post Office Act
The prosecution case is that on the 18th October 1955 a registered letter containin half portion of a ten rupee note and petition on behalf of one Muppayyagonda asking for the said note to be exchanged for a fresh note was received at the Haveri Post Office at 430 pm from the Branch Post Office at Kabbur
The appellant who was a registration clerk at Haveri at the time however detained the registered envelope instead of 608 despatching it that very day as he should have done
He despatched it the next day
It was the prosecution case that the appellant removed the half portion of the ten rupee currency note from inside the envelope and to cover up his misconduct made alterations in the petition contained in the envelope and in the list of registered articles
All this was discovered it is said when the Reserve Bank of India to which this envelope was addressed made enquiries in the matter on finding that no note had been enclosed with the petition
The appellant admitted that the envelope was received at the Haveri Post Office on October 18 1955 and also that he did not despatch it on that date
His case was that it was received at about 530 pm on the 18th and so it was too late for despatch on that date but that he despatched it duly on the 19th On a consideration of the evidence the Sessions Judge held that the charge under section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act for the theft of currency note and for secreting the registered articles had not been established and acquitted him of that charge
He however found it proved that the appellant bad fraudulently altered the lists of registered articles and thereby committed an offence under section 55 of the Indian Post Office Act
He also held that the appellant had wilfully detained the envelope and thus committed an offence under section 53 of the Indian Post Office Act
He accordingly convicted the appellant of the charges under Ss 53 and 55 of the Indian Post Office Act and sentenced him to undergo two months  imprisonment on each charge
The sentences were directed to run concurrently
On appeal
the High Court of Mysore set aside the ap pellant s conviction under section 55 of the Indian Post Office Act but maintained his conviction under section 53 being of opinion that while the wilful detention of the envelope by the appellant had been proved the alleged alterations by him in the list of registered articles had not been established
Against the High Court s decision the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ramchandra Narasimha Kulkarni
In support of the appeal it is contended by Dr Barlingey that as the allegations of theft of the note or of alterations in the list of registered articles by the appellant have not been established the appellant must be held not to have committed any offence under section 53 of the Indian Post Office Act
It is argued that assuming that the envelope was detained by the appellant as alleged he cannot be said to have detained it wilfully unless it is shown that he bad some purpose in doing it
But the purpose alleged by the prosecution was that he wanted to commit theft of the currency note and to cover this up to make alterations in the list of registered articles these purposes have not been established
So argues the learned Counsel the detention of the envelope should be held 609 to have been made without any purpose but only through inadvertence or mere carelessness
That would not constitute according to the learned Counsel a wilful detention
The words wilful and wilfully are frequently used in many statutes and have come up for judicial consideration in the courts of this country as also elsewhere
The meaning given to these words have differed in different contexts
Sometimes any intentional act has been held to be a wilful act
Re Young and Harston1
Often it has been said that the word wilful suggests bad conduct or action though it does not necessarily connote blame
Wheeler vs New Merton Board Mills2 Not infrequently the word has been used to mean that the act had been done with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly obstinately or perversely
United States of America vs Harry Murdock3
Some decisions stress the requirement of deliberation or reckless disregard of the fact whether the act was or was not in breach of duty in deciding whether it has been wilful
Hudson vs Official Liquidator4 and In re TNK Govindarajulu Chetty5
In the last mentioned case viz In re TNK Govindarajulu Chetty s case the Madras High Court held that a submission of a false return cannot be a wilful submission unless the dealer has deliberately made the return with the knowledge that he was excluding a taxable item though in almost similar circumstances another Bench of the same High Court took a different view and held that even though when an assessee under the impression that a particular item is not taxable and therefore need be excluded in the return omits lo make a mention of it in the return which he furnished with the full knowledge of his having committed the same he has wilfully omitted it
In re Jayarama Chettiar 6
A review of these various decisions brings out clearly the guiding principle that the meaning to be attached to the words  wilful or wilfully has to be ascertained on a close examination of the scheme and nature of the legislation in which the words appear and the context in which they are used
Turning now for this purpose to the Indian Post Office Act we notice that s53 which makes punishable the wilful detention or delay of a postal article by an officer of the post office in one of the several sections which create offences under this Act
There are 21 such sections being sections 49 131 Ch D 174
2 19332 KB 669
378 Law E 389
4 AIR 1929 All 826
51951 2 STC 27
6 ILR 1949 Madras 121
LPDISCI 20 610 to 56 and 58 to 70 all in Chapter X of the Act
Some of these offences viz those under Ss 49 58 59 63 64 65 66 and 67 are punishable only with fine
The offences under Ss 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 60 61 62 68 and 69 are made punishable also with imprisonment
Of these again the offences under section 53 are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years offences under Ss 53 54 55 56 60 and 68 are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years offences under Ss 61 and 62 are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year while offences under Ss 51 and 69 are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months only
An offence under s 50 is punishable with imprisonment extending to one month or with fine extending to Rs 50 
This comparison clearly shows that the legislature took a more serious view of the offence of wilful detention of a postal articles section 52 than of many other offences in this Chapter
Delay in the conveyance or delivery of a mail bag or other postal articles in the course of transmission by a person employed to carry the same is made punishable with only a fine of Rs 501 section 49
Withdrawal from duties of office without permission or without having given a month s previous notice in writing by a person employed to carry or deliver a mail bag or postal article is also made punishable only with imprisonment extending to one month or with fine extending to Rs 501 
Making of a false entry in the register with intention to induce the belief that an article has been delivered is made punishable with imprisonment extending to only six months or with fine extending to Rs 100 
But Wilful detention of a postal article is made punishable with imprisonment extending to two years
Is it reasonable to thin that the legislature would prescribe this heavy punishment for detention of a postal article which was not deliberate and on purpose while prescribing lighter punishment as mentioned above for the offences under Ss 49 50 and 5 1
We do not think so
The very fact that this comparatively heavy punishment of two years  imprisonment has been prescribed for wilful detention while lighter punishment has been prescribed under Ss 49 50 and 51 justifies in our opinion the concclusion that the word wilful was used by the legislature to mean only such detention which was deliberate and for some purpose
It is interesting to notice in this connection that in the preceding section 52 the legislature after making punishable the offence of theft of a postal article or of dishonest misappropriation of the same also made punishable the secretion destruction or throwing away any postal article if done for any purpose whatsoever
It is in our opinion reasonable to think that in section 53 when the word wilfully was used the 611 legislature also intended that the detention would be punishable only if made for some purpose
Coining now to the facts of the present case we find that the prosecution alleged a definite purpose viz the purpose of theft of the contents of the envelope as the purpose with which the postal article was detained
The existence of that purpose has not however been established
Nothing was suggested before us as to what other purpose the appellant could have had in detaining the article
There is therefore no escape from the conclusion that the detention was not deliberate and on purpose but as a result of either inadvertence or carelessness or negligence
So the appellant cannot be said to have detained or delayed the article wilfully 
Accordingly we allow the appeal set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court and order that the appellant be acquitted of the charge against him
RAGHUBAR DAYAL J
The main question to determine in this case is what the expression wilfully detains or delays  in section 53 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 Act VI of 1898 hereinafter called the Act means
I do not agree that it means such detention which was deliberate and for some purpose
I am of opinion that the detention or delay would be wilful  if it was intentional and deliberate on the part of the officer of the post office as opposed to detention or delay on account of negligence or inadvertence
The word wilful  or wilfully  used in other enactments have been construed by Court in this manner
I may refer to some of these cases
In Taylor vs Vergette1 wilful delay  has been construed to mean intional delay  Wilfully  means that the act is done deliberately and intentionally not by accident or inadvertence but so that the mind of the person who does the act goes with it
In Tamboli vs Great Indian Peninsular Railway Company3 the Privy Council had to construe the expression wilful neglect  in determining the responsibility of the railway administration or its servants and approved of what was said by Lord Russel in Reg
vs Senior2
1 2  290
3 LR 55 IA 67ILR LPDLSCI 20a 612 In Wheeler vs New Merton Board Mills Ltd1 it was said  Wilful act  is plain English and I can entertain no doubt that the installing of this machine without guard or fence for use in the factory was a wilful act by some one
It was an act and it was intentional
It is true that though wilful  and intentional  are synonymous  wilful  is more commonly used in modern speech of bad conduct or actions than of good though it does not necessarily connote blame but that is far from supporting the strange contention that wilful act in section 29 sub section 1 must be confined to something done with intent to injure
In Hudson vs Official Liquidator2 wilful default  was construed and it was said at p 930 The adjective wilful  in wilful acts or defaults  has evidently been used as a description and not as a definition
The idea intended to be conveyed is that the default is occasioned by the exercise of volition or as the result of the non exercise of will due to supine indifference although the defaulter knew or was in a position to know that loss or harm was likely to result
The word does not necessarily suggest the idea of moral turpitude
We have also to eliminate the elements of accident or inadvertence or honest error of judgement
The default must be the result of deliberation or intent or be the consequence of a reckless omission Wilful default  therefore is indicative of some misconduct in the transaction of business or in the discharge of duty by omitting to do something either deliberately or by a reckless disregard of the fact whether the act or omission was or was not a breach of duty
This view was accepted by the Madras High Court in TNK Govindarajulu Chetty In re3
The words wilful  and wilfully  have been used in the various provisions of the Act do not lead to any different interpretation of these words
Section 6 of the Act provides inter alia that no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any loss mis delivery delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default
11933 2 KB 669
2 AIR 1929 All
826 3 1951 2
STC 27
613 Section 48c provides that no suit or other legal proceed ing shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the post office in respect of the payment of any money order being refused or delayed by or on account of any accidental neglect omission or mistake by or on the part of an Officer of the post office or for any other cause whatsoever other than the fraud or wilful act or default such officer and brings out effectively the contradistinction between wilful act or default of an officer and an act done on account of accidental neglect omission or mistake
Section 49 to 70 provide for offences
Sections 49 50 and 51 deal with offences which are committed by persons who are employed to carry or deliver any mail bag or any postal article in course of transmission by post
They are thus offences by carriers of postal articles
They can be committed both by the officers of the postal department and by others as well
Such of the acts contemplated by those sections which can also fall under the other sections exclusively applicable to officers of the post office will naturally be dealt with under those sections
The persons who will be dealt with under Ss 49 to 51 or other sections providing for lighter punishments will be those who are not officers of the postal department but are concerned in any manner with the transmission of the post
Clause c of section 49 makes punishable the loitering or making delay in the conveyance or delivery of any mail bag or postal article and thus emphasizes the necessity of prompt transport of postal articles
Sections 52 to 66 provide for offences by officers of a post office
Section 52 provides punishment for committing theft or dishonestly misappropriating in respect of or for any purpose whatsoever secreting destroying or throwing away any postal article in the course of transmission by post or anything contained therein
The offence is punishable with imprisonment upto seven years and also with fine
This is the most serious offence
It is to be noted for our purpose that the secreting des troying or throwing away of the postal article for any pur pose whatsoever is an offence
An act done with a purpose must be a deliberate act and a deliberate act must also be one done with some purpose
The legislature where it intended to make the purpose behind an act an ingredient of the offence expressly stated so
If the word wilful  or wilfully  is used in the Act as a synonym for an act done deliberately and for some purpose the expression wilfully  could have been used in the place of for any purpose whatsoever 
This however the legislature did not do though it used that word in the very next section viz section 53 which reads 614 lm15 Whoever being an officer of the Post Office contrary to his duty opens or causes or suffers to be opened any postal article in course of transmission by post or wilfully detains or delayed or causes or suffers to be detained or delayed any such postal article shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both Provided that nothing in this section shall extend to the opening detaining or delaying of any postal article under the authority of this Act or in obedience to the order in writing of the Central Government or the direction of a competent Court
Sections 54 55 and 56 make certain acts done fraudulently knowingly or with intent punishable with imprisonment upto two years or fine
Section 55 makes the fraudulent altering or secreting or destroying of a document which an officer of the post office is entrusted with keeping punishable with imprisonment upto two years and with fine
This act is con sidered less heinous than that of secreting destroying or throwing away of any postal article in the course of transmission by post for any purpose whatsoever
Section 661 makes the master of a ship who in certian circumstances knowingly has in his baggage or in his possession or custody any postal article within the exclusive privilege conferred on the Central Government by section 4 punishable with fine which may extend to Rs 50 for every such postal article
Here a certain act committed knowingly is made an offence
Sub section
2 of section 66 makes the detention of any postal article after a demand for it has been made by an officer of the post office punishable
Here the mere detention after a demand is made penal irrespective of the intention or purpose behind such detention
Section 67 makes the detention of mails or any postal article in the course of transmission by post by anyone except under the various circumstances mentioned in the section in offence
Here again mere detention is made an offence irrespective of the circumstances in which it is made excepting for reasons mentioned in the section iteself
Section 68 reads Whoever fraudulently retains or wilfully secretes or makes away with or keeps or detains or when required by an officer of the post office neglects or refuses to deliver up any postal article in 615 course of transmission by post which ought to have been delivered to any other person or a mail bag containing a postal article shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be punishable with fine
It is to be noticed that wilfully  secreting any postal article in the course of transmission by post is an offence under this section
A comparison with the provisions of section 52 of the Act indicates that the legislature must have used the expresssions wilfully  and for any purpose whatsoever  in different senses
maliciously with intent to injure any person offences Wilfully here is used as something distinct from maliciously  and is further used in addition to the expression with intent to injure any person  that is to say the particular purpose or intent is in ingredient of the offence in addition to wilfully 
Sections 6 and 48c provide that an officer of a post office would be liable for the loss misdelivery delay or of damage to any postal article in the course of transmission or for the delay in the payment of a money order only when this happens as a result of his wilful act or default
The person suffering from such misdelivery etc has no claim against the officer of the post office if that thing has been the result of something which could not be said to be the wilful act or default of a postal officer
It is no concern of the addressee or recipient of an article in transit by post that the wilful act or default of the postal officer was with a certain purpose or not and whether that officer succeeded in that purpose or not
Vie should be successful in his claim if the postal officer has deliberately not acted in the manner he is required to act tinder the Act or the rules framed thereunder or if he has deliberately acted in violation of the duties entrusted to him
In either case the act of the officer concerned would be wilful inasmuch as he would act intentionally in violation of his duty or in a manner in which he is not to act and not accidently or inadvertently
The provision of s53 of the Act require that the office wilfully detains  the postal article and that the act of detention be contrary to his duty prescribed by or under the Act
Section 212c empowers the Central Government to make rules providing for the detention and disposal of articles in course of transmission by post in certain circumstances
Sections 221 23 26
27B and 372 provide for the circumstances in which postal articles can be detained or delayed
It is not necessary to detail those circumstances
The clause contrary to his duty  governs both the act of opening 616 of the Postal article and to the act of detaining it
The first necessary ingredient of the offence under section 53 is that the postal officer should act contrary to his duty
Such an act however can take place by accident or negligence also without the officer s knowing it or even giving any thou it to it and therefore without his exercising his will in that matter
The legislature therefore felt that accidental or negligent acts be not made offences and that detention of the postal article even if it be contrary to duty be protected and that only such detention of the articles be made punishable which be committed wilfully ie when the officer applied his mind towards the act and has committed it deliberately with the intention of committing it
The mere act of detaining mails or postal articles by any person other than a postal officer is made punishable only with fine under section 67 of the Act
This indicates that the punishment under section 53 is severe because the culprit is an officer of the post office who has opportunities to detain the postal article and who acts contrary to his duty
The proviso to section 53 refers to cases which would have come within the main provisions and provides that the main provisions do not extend to the opening detaining or delay ing of any postal article under the authority of the Act or in obedience to the order in writing of the Central Government or the direction of a competent Court
Such acts would be undoubtedly deliberate and without any criminal purpose
The use of the expression for any purpose whatsoever  in section 52 is no guide to construe the word wilfully  in section 53
It appears to have been used in section 52 in contradistinction to the mens rea necessary for the commission of the offence of theft or of dishonest misappropriation
Its use makes it clear that the act of secreting destroying or throwing away of the postal article will be punishable if with a purpose whatever that may have been
I therefore construe wilfully  in section 53 to mean inten tionally and deliberately  and not accidently or negligently and hold that the appellant has been rightly convicted of the offence under that section
I am further of opinion that even if the expression wil fully detains  in section 53 of the Act means a detention delibe rate and for some purpose the appellant is not entitled to an acquittal on the findings the Courts have arrived at
The appellant in ordinary course of business would have forwarded the registered letter by the mail on October 18 1955 when it had been received at the usual hour and the ap pellant s contention that it was received after the despatch 617 of the mail has not been accepted
It follows that the appellant deliberately detained the registered letter
The intention and deliberation was directed towards the detaining of the registered letter and to the non forwarding of it in due course With the mail that day
Every intentional and deliberate act must be with some purpose or object
It may be that in some cases the object be achieved by the mere doing of the act intended that is to say the object was just the doing of that act
In other cases an act may be done with some further object also
The appellant s purpose behind his intentional act of detaining the registered letter must have been to remove what he might have suspected the letter to contain
If he did not have any such object he could not have any reason to depart from his duty and detain the letter instead of sending it by the next mail in the ordinary course of his duties
His act therefore in detaining the letter amounted to his detain ing it wilfully
that he himself opened the letter tempered with its contents and removed the half currency note facts which have been proved to have been committed by someone does not mean that his detaining the letter was not on purpose
A person may do an act with a certain purpose and yet may not succeed in his purpose
Even if he succeeds it may not be possible for any other person to establish that he did that act for that purpose and did succeed in achieving that purpose
I would therefore dismiss the appeal
ORDER BY COURT In accordance with the majority opinion the appeal is allowed the order of conviction and sentence set aside and the appellant ordered to be acquitted of the charge against him
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant was a registration clerk in a post office
He was prosecuted on the allegation that he committed theft of a half of a ten rupee note contained in a registered letter along with a petition for exchanging it for altering the petition and for detaining the registered letter for a day with the purpose of committing the theft and making the alteration
He was charged under Ss 52 53 and 54 respectively of the Post Offices Act 1898
The Sessions Judges who tried the case found him not guilty of the offence under section 52 but guilty under Ss 53 and 55
On appeal to the High Court he was found not to be guilty of the offence under section 55 the conviction under section 53 was maintained
Thereupon he appealed to this Court
It was contended by the appellant before this Court that as suming that he detained the envelope he cannot be said to have detained it wilfully unless it is shown that he had some purpose in doing it and since the purpose alleged by the prosecution has not been proved the appellant cannot be said to have committed the offence under section 53
Held per K Subba Rao and K C Das Gupta JJ
A review of the case law brings out clearly the guiding principle that the meaning to be attached to the words wilful  or wilfully has to be ascertained on a close examination of the scheme and nature of the legislation in which the words appear and the context in which they are used
Re Young and Harston Wheeler vs New Merton Board Mills United States of America vs Harry Murdock  Hudson vs Official Liquidator AIR 1929 All 826 In re T M K Govindarajulu Chetty 1951 2 STC 27 and In re Jayarama Chettiar ILR referred to
ii A comparison of the various sections of the Act shows that the legislature took a more serious view of the offence of wilful detention of postal articles than any of the offences in Ch
X and has therefore prescribed a comparatively heavy punishment
Hence it is reasonable to think that in section 53 when the word wilfully was used the legislature also intended that the detention would be punishable only if made for some purpose
iii The prosecution alleged in the present case that the purpose was theft of the note but the existence of that purpose has not been established and detention was not deliberate and hence the appellant cannot be said to have detained the article wilfully
Per Raghubar Dayal J dissenting The legislature where it intended to make the purpose behind an act an ingredient expressly stated so as for example in section 52
If the word wilful or wilfully is used in the Act as 607 a synonym for an act done deliberately and for some purpose the expression wilful could have been used in the place of for any purpose whatsoever
This the legislature did not do though it used that in section 53
ii The mere act of detaining a postal article by any person other than a postal officer is made punishable with only fine under s 67 and a higher punishment is provided under section 53 because the culprit is an officer of the post office who has opportunities to detain the postal articles and who acts contrary to his duties
iii The expression wilfully in section 53 means intentionally and deliberately and not accidently or negligently
iv From the facts of the case it is proved that the appel lant deliberately detained the registered letter
His intention and deliberation were directed towards the detaining of the registered letter and to the non forwarding of it in due course with the mail that day
Every intentional and relevant act must be with some purpose or object
He therefore obtained the letter wilfully and is guilty of the offence under section 53
Taylor vs Vergette 861  Reg
vs Senior  Tamboli vs Great India Peninsular Railway Company LR 55 IA 67 Wheeler vs New Merton Board Mills Ltd  Hudson vs Official Liquidator AIR 1929 All 826 and T N K Govindarajulu Chetty 1951 STC Vol 2 26 referred to