Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. Preo Nath Chowdhry

Emperor vs Preo Nath Chowdhry

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 07, 1902
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/855409

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal breach of trust by servant - Papers ordered to be destroyed--Property--Appropriation of papers by servant--Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) Sections 95 and 408--Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) Section 432. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Preo Nath Chowdhry

Legal References

Cases Referred
Empress v. Wilkinson
Reported In
(1902)ILR29Cal489

Excerpt

criminal breach of trust by servant - papers ordered to be destroyed--property--appropriation of papers by servant--penal code (act xlv of 1860) sections 95 and 408--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) section 432. - stevens and harington, jj.1. this is a reference under section 432 of the code of criminal procedure made by one of the honorary presidency magistrates.2. the defendant was in the service of messrs. kilburn & co., and he received from his employers some bags of waste paper with an order to take them to the company's yard at garden reach and there to burn and destroy the papers. the defendant instead of destroying the papers brought some of them to bow bazar. the honorary magistrate is of opinion that the defendant disobeyed the orders of his masters and converted the papers to his own use. he adds that, though the papers are of no value to the firm, they might be misused by designing persons for the purpose of committing forgery.3. the question which the learned magistrate refers to us is, 'having regard to section 95 of the indian penal code and the case of the empress v. wilkinson (1898(sic)) c. w. n. 216., did the defendant commit any offence under section 408 of the indian penal code?'4. we think that section 95 of the indian penal code would have no application, unless the act in question amounted to an offence under the code, but for the operation of that section.5. as regards the question whether the act committed in itself amounted to an offence under section 408, we think that the case is closely analogous to that of the empress v. wilkinson (1898) 2 c. w. n. 216., to which the learned honorary magistrate refers, and in accordance with the view expressed in that case we hold that the act of the defendant did not amount to criminal breach of trust.6. let this answer be returned to the honorary magistrate.

Full Judgment

Stevens and Harington, JJ.

1. This is a reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by one of the Honorary Presidency Magistrates.

2. The defendant was in the service of Messrs. Kilburn & Co., and he received from his employers some bags of waste paper with an order to take them to the Company's yard at Garden Reach and there to burn and destroy the papers. The defendant instead of destroying the papers brought some of them to Bow Bazar. The Honorary Magistrate is of opinion that the defendant disobeyed the orders of his masters and converted the papers to his own use. He adds that, though the papers are of no value to the firm, they might be misused by designing persons for the purpose of committing forgery.

3. The question which the learned Magistrate refers to us is, 'having regard to Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code and the case of the Empress v. Wilkinson (1898(sic)) C. W. N. 216., did the defendant commit any offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code?'

4. We think that Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code would have no application, unless the act in question amounted to an offence under the Code, but for the operation of that section.

5. As regards the question whether the act committed in itself amounted to an offence under Section 408, we think that the case is closely analogous to that of the Empress v. Wilkinson (1898) 2 C. W. N. 216., to which the learned Honorary Magistrate refers, and in accordance with the view expressed in that case we hold that the act of the defendant did not amount to criminal breach of trust.

6. Let this answer be returned to the Honorary Magistrate.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial