Madhu Bala Vs. Narender Kumar and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

sooperkanoon.com/642693

Subject	Criminal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Decided On	Jan-04-1982
Case Number	Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1982
Judge	E.S. Venkataramiah and; P.N. Bhagwati, JJ.
Reported in	AIR1982SC938; 1982CriLJ855; (1982)2SCC444
Appellant	Madhu Bala
Respondent	Narender Kumar and ors.

Excerpt:

.....state of pepsu, [1955] 1 s.c.r. 1302, referred to. per sarkar, j. whether an offence was committed in the course of official duty will depend on the facts of each case. the test is whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that what he did he did in virtue of his office. [213 g-h; 215 c-d] hori ram singh v. the crown, [1939] f.c.r. 159, shreekantiah ramayya munipalli v. state of bombay, [1955] 1 s.c.r. 1177 and gill v. king, [1948] f.c.r. 19, referred to. the facts of the present case could not be distinguished from those in amrik singh's case. the appellant when charged with the defalcation of rs. 21,450 could have reasonably said that he sent the amounts to the treasury as the accounts showed, and that would have been an act in the performance of his official duty. in respect of the sum of rs. 10,000 he could similarly have said that he spent them in the discharge of his duty. whether he had actually done that or not would be irrelevant for deciding the necessity for sanction. [215b, d, e-f] the trial and conviction of the appellant under s. 409 indian penal code for defalcation of the two sums of rs. 10,000 and rs. 21,450 was therefore bad in the absence..........her age and she stated that she has just completed 21 years in the month of mar. 1981. she also appears to be of 21 years age. we have satisfied ourselves that the appellant is not being detained against her will and without her consent. the application for a writ of habeas corpus for her production and release must therefore fail. neither the dismissal of this application for a writ of habeas corpus nor anything we have said in this order will stand in the way of the first respondent agitating, if he so wishes, the factum of marriage or any other civil on matrimonial rights which he may have against the appellant and it will be for the appropriate court in which such question is raised to decide it on the evidence which may be led before it appeal is disposed of in the light of the above observations.

Judgment:

P.N. Bhagwati, J.

1. Special leave granted.

2. The appellant appeared before us in chamber and we questioned her in order to find out whether she is being detained by her parents against her wish and she is being prevented from going to the first respondent. The appellant stated clearly and unequivocally before us that she is not being detained by her parents against her will and she does not want to go to the first respondent. We asked the appellant her age and she stated that she has just completed 21 years in the month of Mar. 1981. She also appears to be of 21 years age. We have satisfied ourselves that the appellant is not being detained against her will and without her consent. The application for a writ of habeas corpus for her production and release must therefore fail. Neither the dismissal of this application for a writ of habeas corpus nor anything we have said in this order will stand in the way of the first respondent agitating, if he so wishes, the factum of marriage or any other civil on matrimonial rights which he may have against the appellant and it will be for the appropriate Court in which such question is raised to decide it on the evidence which may be led before it Appeal is disposed of in the light of the above observations.