N Criminal
Appeal No 330 of 1980
From the judgement and Order dated 341980 of the Madras High Court in Crl
Appeal No 360 of 1974
Hardev Singh and Ms Madhu Moolchandani for the Appellants
VC Mahajan B Parthasarthi and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
The appellant NM Parthasarathy is the sole proprietor of a firm called Elector technik
He was formerly working as Inspector of Industries
He along with an Inspector of Industries was prosecuted on the allegations that between February 1967 and February 1969 they entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain Small Scale Industries Registration Certificate for additional lines of manufacture Essentiality Certificate and import licences on false representations made to the Director of Industries Assistant Director of Industries Joint Chief Controller of ImportsExports and the Iron and Steel Controller
The first 251 charge framed against both of them was for an offence of conspiracy punishable under section 120 B read with section 420 IPC and section 51 b read with section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
Charges 2 4 and 6 framed against him were for offence of cheating punishable under section 420 IPC
Charges 3 5 and 7 were framed against the second accused for abetment of cheating punishable under section 420 read with section 109 IPC
The 8th charge was also against the second accused under section 5 1 b read with section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
The trial court acquitted both of them on all the charges
The State went in appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the High Court on re appreciation of evidence set side the acquittal and convicted both of them on all the counts
The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 120 B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for each of the three counts of cheating under section 420 IPC
The sentences were to run concurrently
We have heard Mr Hardev Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Mr VC Mahajan Senior Advocate for the respondents
Mr Hardev Singh has taken us through the judgment of the trial court and that of the High Court
Mr Hardev Singh has primarily argued that the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court
According to him even if two views were possible the High Court was not justified in taking a different view than the trial court and reversing the acquittal
This precise argument was raised before the High Court on behalf of the appellant
The High Court rejected the same as under In the circumstances I am of the opinion that this is not a case where on the evidence available on record two conclusions are possible and therefore this Court could not interfere with the acquittal of the accused by the learned Special Judge
I am of the opinion that only one conclusion is possible on the evidence on record and that it is that the accused are guilty of all the charges framed against them and that interference with the acquittal of the accused by the learned Special Judge is called for in this case
 We are of the view that the High Court was justified in reaching the above conclusion
The High Court examined the evidence on the record in detail and rightly came to the conclusion that the guilt against the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt
The High Court on re appreciation of the evidence independently reached the following findings 252 Thus it is established by Exhibit D 36 as well as the evidence of PWs 3 and 6 that the first accused had only a single phase domestic supply of electricity at his premises in Katpadi Extension even in August 1969 that he could not have used that supply of electricity validly for any non domestic purposes and that it would not have been possible to produce any industrial machinery with that single phase power
 The evidence of PWs 6 13 15 and 19 shows that the machinery found in the premises of Electro technic during their inspections were worth only about Rs 9200 or Rs 10000 and not of the value of Rs 94000 as represented by the first accused in the list submitted by him along with his application Exhibit P 18 It has already been found that with the 230 Volts domestic supply he could not have produced any of the new end products
The additional machinery required for producing these new end products had not been installed in the first accused s factory
It is hardly likely that all the alleged additional machinery could have been installed in the factory whose dimensions are only 18 feet by 12 feet It is made clear by the evidence that the second accused had made false statements in Exhibit P 96 about the alleged installation of the additional items of machinery in the first accused s factory
For the reasons stated above I find that the prosecution has proved charges 2 and 3 satisfactorily beyond all reasonable doubt The first accused has succeeded in obtaining the Essentiality Certificate Exhibit P5 by making these false representations and the 2nd accused has induced PW5 to recommend in Exhibit P24 the issue of the Essentiality Certificate and PW12 to issue the Essentiality Certificate and Exhibit P 14 by making the false representations Exhibit P 22 and P 23 as in Exhibit P 19 which have been found to be false in the earlier part of his judgment
Therefore I find that the prosecution has proved these two charges 4 and 5 against the accused satisfactorily and beyond all reasonable doubt In the present case both the accused have acted in concert in the first accused obtaining the SSI registration certificate Exhibit P 20 as amended by Exhibit P 21 the Essentiality Certificate Exhibit P 5 and the import licenses Exhibits P 6 and P 7 and the second accused enabling him to obtain the 253 same by his recommendations Exhibits P 19 P 22 and P 23 which contain false particulars
This would show that both the accused have acted in concert for committing these offences and that they would not have done so if there had been no conspiracy
In these circumstances I find that the prosecution has established the charge of conspiracy framed against both the accused satisfactorily and beyond reasonable doubt
 We agree with the above quoted reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court
We therefore uphold the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court
While upholding the judgment of the High Court we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that this is fit case where benefit of section 360 Criminal Procedure Code be extended to the appellant
The occurrence in this case relates to the period between February 1967 and February 1969
The Special Judge Madras by his judgment dated July 23 1973 acquitted the appellant
The High Court on April 3 1980 reversed the trial court and convicted the appellant
This Court granted bail to the appellant on April 29 1980
Mr Hardev Singh has placed before us documents showing several achievements of the appellant in the industrial field since then
The appellant s industry has manufactured the largest Hot Air Kiln in India for Ministry of Railways largest Degreasing plant for Nuclear Fuel Complex Sintering Furnace for anti tank missiles and various other items for the Ministry of Defence and other Departments of the Government of India
The appellant claims that he has set up 100 per cent export unit with Rs 75 crores export per annum
For all these reasons we are of the view that it is expedient that the appellant be released on probation
We therefore direct that he be released on his entering into a bond to the satisfaction of the Special Court Madras
The Special Court shall pass an order in terms of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 to its satisfaction
A copy of this order be sent to the Special Court Madras immediately
The appellant is directed to appear before the Special Court Madras within two months from today to enable the Special Court Madras to pass an order as directed by us
In the event of appellant s failure to present himself before the Special Court as directed he shall undergo the original sentence awarded by the High Court
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms
TNA Appeal disposed of


Summary:
The Respondents landlords filed a suit for possession of the suit premises against the appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent amongst other The 7th Additional Small Causes Judge dismissed the suit holding that the service of notice dated 7 8 1980 on the defendants terminating the tenancy was not proved even though one out of the three acknowledgments due had been received duly signed
As regards the question of default in payment of rent the learned Judge took the view that the case did not fall under Section 123b of the Act as the defendants had paid Rs 55800 on 1611984 and thereafter made regular payment of Rs 600 every month
On appeal by the respondent landlords the learned additional District Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit
The learned Additional District Judge held that when the notices are sent by registered post it is presumed to have been served and mere denial by the tenants had no value unless they proved some extraordinary happenings or events which prevented following of usual course of business
On the question of default in payment of rent the learned Judge held that as the defendants did not deposit the entire arrears on the first date of hearing and did not deposit the further rent during the pendency of the appeal they persistently committed defaults during the pendency of the suit and also the appeal
The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the aforesaid order of the learned Additional District Judge
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge
Hence this appeal by the appellants after obtaining special leave
Dismissing the appeal this Court 228 HELD The notice under Section 106 TP Act can be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it
Thus the notice sent by registered post in the name of the defendant company who is the tenant is fully in accordance with the requirement of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act232H 233A The plaintiffs had sent a copy of the notice to all the three defendants by registered post
Three postal receipts Exhs
5253 and 54 have been filed in the present case Exh 51 one acknowledgment receipt
As regards Exh 51 the defendants No2 has appeared in the witness box and has denied his signatures
However it has not been shown that this acknowledgment receipt was related to which of the three notices sent vide postal receipts Exhs 5253 and 54
231E F The rebuttal if any made by defendant No2 can be related only with regard to Exh
51 for one notice but not with regard to all the three notices sent by registered post vide Exhs
52 to 54232D The service of notice shall have to be presumed so far as defendant company is concerned and there is no rebuttal to presumption by the defendant appellants
232E The finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge that the defendants were defaulter in the payment of rent as full amount of rent was not paid or deposited on the first date of hearing and no rent was paid month by month during the pendency of the appeal could not be assailed
233B Green View Radio Service vs Laxmibai Ramji and Anr  referred to