A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court judgment in Chandi Prasad Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1955) 2 SCR 1035, is a landmark case in criminal jurisprudence that illuminates several essential legal principles involving criminal breach of trust, falsification of records, procedural irregularities, and the distinction between a servant and an agent. The appellant, as the Secretary and promoter of a co-operative housing society, was charged under Section 409 IPC for misappropriating funds collected as share money and under Section 477-A IPC for falsifying the society’s minute book. Despite being acquitted by a jury and assessors at the Sessions Court, the Sessions Judge overruled both findings and convicted the appellant, triggering a reference under Section 307 CrPC to the High Court.

This case examines the procedural validity of divergent trial mechanisms for charges under Sections 409 and 477-A, the jurisdictional limits under Section 307 CrPC, the legal status of the appellant as either servant or agent, and the permissibility of joint charges under Sections 234 and 235 CrPC. Upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court meticulously interpreted criminal procedure doctrines, concluding that no illegality occurred in the Sessions Judge’s approach. The Court also emphasized the practical distinction between a servant and agent and reinforced jurisprudence on the admissibility of multiple charges from a single transaction. The judgment serves as an important precedent on concurrent findings, procedural harmonization, and legal characterization of fiduciary roles.

Keywords: Criminal breach of trust, falsification of accounts, Section 409 IPC, Section 477-A IPC, Section 307 CrPC, agent versus servant

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Chandi Prasad Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1954

iii) Judgement Date
7 December 1955

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice Vivian Bose and Justice Venkatarama Ayyar

vi) Author
Justice Venkatarama Ayyar

vii) Citation
(1955) 2 SCR 1035

viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Sections 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 234, 235, 307, 342, 536, 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case
None explicitly overruled

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Criminal Law, Procedural Law, Corporate and Cooperative Law

---

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment addresses dual charges—criminal breach of trust and falsification of records—within a cooperative society framework. The appellant, as the Secretary of Model Town Co-operative Housing Society, allegedly misappropriated share money from members prior to the society’s formal functioning. After failing to transfer collected funds and falsifying a minute book, he faced prosecution under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC. While the jury and assessors initially acquitted him, the Sessions Judge overruled both opinions, convicting him and prompting a High Court reference under Section 307 CrPC. This reference alongside the appellant’s appeal were jointly disposed of by the High Court, confirming the conviction. The appellant sought relief from the Supreme Court, which revisited important procedural and substantive issues.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Model Town Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., registered on 12 February 1949 under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, had the appellant as chief promoter. He collected share money from multiple individuals, including Sri Chaturvedi (Rs. 500), Dr. O.P. Bhanti (Rs. 100), and Dr. R.S. Seth (Rs. 100). On 1 March 1949, he was elected as Honorary Secretary. Later, the Treasurer demanded that funds be transferred, and the appellant submitted Rs. 3,500, showing receipts only from 13 of the 38 contributors.

On investigation following complaints to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, it was found that amounts collected from Chaturvedi, Bhanti, and Seth had not been entered in the society’s accounts. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, acting as Secretary, had intentionally omitted these transactions, constituting criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC and falsification under Section 477-A IPC.

The Sessions Court, despite acquittal opinions by the jury and assessors, found the appellant guilty. The High Court agreed with this finding, resulting in the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the appellant committed criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC as an agent and not as a servant?

ii. Whether the Sessions Judge erred in referring only part of the case under Section 307 CrPC, ignoring the assessor-assisted part?

iii. Whether multiple charges under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC violated Section 234 CrPC or were saved by Section 235 CrPC?

iv. Whether improper procedure prejudiced the appellant and vitiated the conviction?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

• The funds received were personal deposits, not share money. Dr. Seth’s letter (Exhibit D-5) supported this view, stating the payment was conditional.

• He was a servant and not an agent, thus triable under Section 408 IPC, not Section 409 IPC, which altered the trial mode.

• Referring only part of the matter to the High Court under Section 307 CrPC while deciding the other part himself was a procedural irregularity causing prejudice.

• Being tried for multiple offences (three under Section 409 and one under Section 477-A) in one trial violated Section 234 CrPC, and no notice was given under Section 235 CrPC.

• His statement under Section 342 CrPC was not adequately recorded, violating principles of fair trial.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

• The receipts, invitations to the general body meeting, and evidence of Dr. Seth and Dr. Bhanti confirmed the money was collected as share capital.

• The appellant functioned as an agent with fiduciary duties, not under direct supervision, distinguishing him from a servant.

• The Sessions Judge only had power under Section 307 CrPC for jury trials. He correctly decided the assessor-aided part without any procedural illegality.

• The offences under Sections 409 and 477-A formed a single transaction governed by Section 235 CrPC.

• The accused failed to show any prejudice from procedural aspects, which cannot nullify the conviction under Section 537 CrPC.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 409 IPC – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant or agent
ii. Section 477-A IPC – Falsification of accounts
iii. Section 234 CrPC – Trial for more than one offence
iv. Section 235 CrPC – Trial for multiple offences in same transaction
v. Section 307 CrPC – Reference to High Court on jury disagreement
vi. Section 342 CrPC – Examination of accused
vii. Section 536 and 537 CrPC – Curable procedural irregularities

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Court held the appellant acted as an agent, not a servant, justifying his prosecution under Section 409 IPC. His role as Secretary involved discretionary functions and he wasn’t under daily supervision.

ii. The Sessions Judge acted correctly in referring only the jury-tried charge under Section 477-A to the High Court under Section 307 CrPC. The law does not allow assessor-aided matters to be referred under Section 307.

iii. The Court ruled that Section 235 CrPC applied as all charges formed part of the same transaction, validating the trial’s structure.

iv. The appellant showed no actual prejudice from procedural lapses, thus Section 537 CrPC saved the trial from being vitiated.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The Court warned of potential anomalies where bifurcation of reference and appeal might lead to conflicting findings but emphasized the legal limitations imposed by the CrPC.

ii. It clarified that while practical anomalies may arise, courts must interpret statutes based on legal text, not hypothetical consequences.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Section 307 CrPC applies only to jury trials, not assessor-aided trials.

• Misappropriation by an agent in a society context falls under Section 409 IPC.

• Multiple charges from the same transaction can be tried together under Section 235 CrPC even if more than three.

• Procedural errors must cause real prejudice to warrant relief; curable defects under Section 537 CrPC do not invalidate trial.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh reinforced key procedural safeguards while maintaining a rigid adherence to statutory interpretations. The Court’s reasoning delineated the fine legal lines between servant and agent, clarified jurisdictional bounds under Section 307 CrPC, and confirmed procedural compliance where trials encompass multiple related charges. By upholding the conviction while respecting procedural justice, the Court maintained a balance between technicalities and substantive law. The verdict remains a touchstone in interpreting fiduciary obligations and procedural bifurcations under Indian criminal law.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Emperor v. Haria Dhobi, AIR 1937 Patna 662
ii. Pachaimuthu In re, (1932) ILR 55 Mad 715
iii. Emperor v. Lachman Gangota, AIR 1934 Patna 424
iv. Emperor v. Kalidas, (1898) 8 Bom LR 599
v. Emperor v. Vyankat Singh, (1907) 9 Bom LR 1057
vi. Emperor v. Chanbasappa, AIR 1932 Bom 61

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 409, 408, 477-A
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Sections 234, 235, 307, 342, 536, 537
iii. Co-operative Societies Act, 1912