{"id":116004,"date":"1970-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970"},"modified":"2018-07-03T08:57:39","modified_gmt":"2018-07-03T03:27:39","slug":"sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970","title":{"rendered":"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1543, \t\t 1970 SCR (3) 770<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJOY SHANKAR BHATTACHARYYA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/02\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nRAY, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1543\t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 770\n 1970 SCC  (1) 504\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1985 SC 628\t (47,74)\n\n\nACT:\n     Criminal\tTrial-Secrctary\t of   co-operative   society\ncharged\t under\tss. 408 and 477\t A.I.P.C.-Joint\t trial\twith\nabettors-Acquittal  of abettors-Effect on conviction of\t the\nprincipal accused.\n     Criminal  breach  of  trust-User by  accused  of  money\nentrusted,  contrary to rules-Ratification  by\tDirectors-No\npower to ratify-Effect of\n     Misjoinder of charges-No prejudice to accused.\n     Constitution of India, 1950, Art  134(1)(c)-Certificate\nby  High Court-Judicial discretion to be exercised  by\tHigh\nCourt.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant,\t who  was the  Secretary  of  a\t Cooperative\nSociety and was responsible for the cash and maintenance, of\nthe  accounts of the Society, was charged with the  offenses\nof  criminal breach of trust and falsification\tof  accounts\nunder  ss. 408 and 477-A, I.P.C. He was tried along  with  5\nothers who were charged with the offence of abetment of\t the\noffenses.   The, trial court acquitted all of them, but\t the\nappellate   court  (the\t Court\tof  Judicial   Commissioner)\nconvicted  the\tappellant and acquitted\t the.  others.\t The\nappellate  Court held that the appellant had advanced  money\nagainst the rules of the Society and also to various persons\nnot entitled to it, that the appellant had thereby committed\ncriminal  breach  of  trust and\t either\t misappropriated  or\nmisapplied  the funds of the Society dishonestly to  benefit\nhimself or his relations and friends.  The 'appellate  Court\ncertified  that\t the case was a fit one for appeal  to\tthis\nCourt  under  Art. 134(1) (c), but, the order  granting\t the\ncertificate  did not disclose on its face what\texactly\t was\nthe  difficulty of the appellate Court and what question  of\noutstanding difficulty this Court was to settle.\n    In appeal to this Court,\n    HELD : (1) The acquittal of the co-accused was not based\non  the finding that there was no falsification of  accounts\nor embezzlement.  Therefore, the appellant could not contend\nthat  no offence was committed because of the  acquittal  of\nthe co-accused. [773 G-D]\n    (2)\t  On the finding of the appellate court, it was\t not\na  mere civil liability of the appellant.   The\t appellant's\nmanner\tof dealing with the money entrusted to\this  custody\nconstituted criminal breach of trust.  The Directors had  no\nauthority under the bye-laws to give any directions contrary\nto  the bye-laws and so, could not ratify the  violation  of\nthe  bye-laws.\t Any resolution ratifying the use  of  trust\nmoney  contrary to the directions contained in the  bye-laws\nwould  not validate the breach- of the bye-laws. [775G;\t 776\nA-C]\n    (3)\t  There\t  was  no  misjoinder  of  charges  and\t  no\nprejudice was caused to the appellant. [776 F]\n    (4)\t  The  appellate Court should not have\tgranted\t the\ncertificate, under Art. 134(1)(c) in the present case.\t The\nword 'certify' in the Article\n771\npostulates  the\t exercise.  of judicial\t discretion  by\t the\nappellate  Court and the certificate should ordinarily\tshow\non  the\t face  of it that the  discretion  was\tinvoked\t and\nproperly  exercised.  This Court should be in a position  to\nknow that the appellate Court has not acted mechanically but\nhas  applied its mind.\tA certificate under this  clause  is\nimpermissible on questions of fact.  When the case does\t not\ndisclose  a  substantial question of law or  principle\t-the\ncertificate. granted by the appellate Court is liable to  be\nrevoked\t by  this  Court,  though  such_  prima\t facie\tnon-\ndisclosure would not by itself automatically invalidate\t the\ncertificate [777 A-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 131  of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal  from  the judgment and order dated\t January  9,
\n1967 of the Judicial Commissioner’s Court Tripura,  Agartala
\nin Criminal Appeal Case No. 8 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
     M.\t K. Ramamurthi, J. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     Dua,  J.  Pursuant to a complaint by Shri\tJoy  Shanker
\nBhattacharyya, the appellant Sushil Kumar Gupta was tried in
\nthe  court  of\tAssistant Sessions  Judge,  Tripura  on\t the
\nfollowing charges
\n\t\t  “(1)\tThat  you in between  the  month  of
\n\t      September, 1958 and July, 1959 at Agarwala  P.
\n\t      S. Kotwali being a servant viz.  Secretary  in
\n\t      the   employment\t of  the   Tripura   Central
\n\t      Marketing\t Co-operative Society Ltd.,  and  in
\n\t      such capacity entrusted with certain  property
\n\t      to  wit  a total sum of Rs. 18,200  being\t the
\n\t      fund of the Society committed criminal  breach
\n\t      of  trust in respect of the said property\t and
\n\t      thereby committed an offence punishable  under
\n\t      s. 408 of the Indian Penal Code and within the
\n\t      cognizance of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  Secondly : that you in between the  period
\n\t      of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at the\tsame
\n\t      place  being a Secretary in the employment  of
\n\t      the  Tripura  Central  Marketing\tCo-operative
\n\t      Society  Ltd.,  wilfully and  with  intent  to
\n\t      defaud,  falsified  certain  books  and  other
\n\t      relevant\tpapers to wit cash book etc.,  which
\n\t      belonged\tto the said society,  your  employer
\n\t      and  thereby committed an\t offence  punishable
\n\t      under  S. 477-A of the Indian Penal  Code\t and
\n\t      within the cognizance of this Court.”
\n     As\t the  appellant was tried jointly  along  with\tfive
\nothers\twho  have  been acquitted and as if  was  argued  on
\nbehalf of the appellant that in view of the acquittal of his
\nco-accused the appellant
\n772<\/span>
\nalso  should have been acquitted, the charges  against\tthem
\nmay -also be reproduced : –\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “That Sushil Kumar Gupta, Secretary of\t the
\n\t      Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative Society
\n\t      Ltd., in between the period of September, 1958
\n\t      and  July,  1959\tat  Agartala  p.s.   Kotwali
\n\t      committed\t the offence of criminal  breach  of
\n\t      trust  in respect of Rs. 18, 200 and that\t you
\n\t      the  aforesaid persons at the same  place\t and
\n\t      time  abetted  the said  Shri.   Sushil  Kumar
\n\t      Gupta in the commission of the same offence of
\n\t      criminal\tbreach\tof trust in respect  of\t the
\n\t      said amount which was committed in consequence
\n\t      of  your\tabetment and that you  have  thereby
\n\t      committed an offence punishable under s.\t109,
\n\t      I.P.C. read with s. 408, I.P.C. and within  my
\n\t      cognizance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  Secondly  : that Shri Sushil Kumar  Gupta,
\n\t      Secretary of the Tripura Central Marketing Co-
\n\t      operative\t Society Ltd. in between the  period
\n\t      of September, 1958 and July, 1959 at  Agartala
\n\t      p.s.   Kotwali   committed  the\toffence\t  of
\n\t      falsification  of\t accounts and that  you\t the
\n\t      aforesaid\t persons at the same place and\ttime
\n\t      abetted  the said Shri Sushil Kumar  Gupta  in
\n\t      the   commission\tof  the\t same\toffence\t  of
\n\t      falsification  of account which was  committed
\n\t      in  consequence of your abetment and that\t you
\n\t      have  thereby committed an offence  punishable
\n\t      u\/s  109,\t I.P.C. read with s.  477-A  of\t the
\n\t      I.P.C. and within my cognizance.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  trial court acquitted all the six accused persons.\t  An
\nappeal\tagainst the acquittal of all of them  was  preferred
\nunder  s.  417 (3), Cr.\t P.C. in the court of  the  Judicial
\nCommissioner,  Tripura.\t  That\tcourt  allowed\tthe   appeal
\nagainst\t S.  K. Gupta only and dismissed it as\tagainst\t the
\nothers.\t  S.  K.  Gupta was held guilty of  the\t offence  of
\ncriminal  breach of trust under s. 408, I.P.C. and  also  of
\nthe  offence  of falsification of accounts under  s.  477-A,
\nI.P.C.\tregarding the sum of Rs. 18,200.  He  was  sentenced
\nunder  each count to undergo rigorous imprisonment  for\t one
\nyear, the sentences to be concurrent.
\n   The\tconvict\t S. K. Gupta has appealed to this  Court  on
\ncertificate   granted\tunder\tArt.   134(1)(c)   of\t the
\nConstitution.\t‘Me order granting the certificate does\t not
\ndisclose  on  its face what exactly the\t difficulty  of\t the
\ncourt  of  the Judicial Commissioner is and  precisely\twhat
\nquestion of outstanding difficulty this Court is desired  to
\nsettle.\t  On  behalf of the appellant his  learned  advocate
\nShri  Ramamurthy,  however,  addressed\telaborate  arguments
\nquestioning  the order of the learned Judicial\tCommissioner
\nallowing
\n773<\/span>
\nthe  appeal against the appellant S. K.\t Gupta’s  acquittal.
\nHis,  challenge\t was based on three main  contentions.\t The
\nfourth point that the learned Judicial Commissioner erred in
\nlaw in- considering Ex.\t P-59 to be admissible in  evidence,
\nin disagreement with the trial court, according to which  it
\nwas hit by s. 24, Indian Evidence Act, was not allowed to be
\nargued\tin this Court because this ground was not  taken  in
\nthe grounds of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    The first contention seriously pressed on behalf of\t the
\nappellant is that in view of the acquittal of his co-accused
\nwho  were  tried along with him the court  of  the  Judicial
\nCommissioner  was  wrong in law in holding  that  there\t was
\nfalsification  of accounts and embezzlement of the funds  of
\nthe  Tripura Central Marketing Co-operative  Society.\tThis
\nsubmission is unacceptable.  The acquittal of the other\t co-
\naccused as affirmed by the learned Judicial Commissioner  is
\nnot based on the finding that there was no falsification  of
\naccounts  and no embezzlement of the funds of  the  Society.
\nS.  K.\tGupta,\tappellant, it may be  pointed  out  was\t the
\nSecretary of the Society since April 13, 1957 when the first
\ngeneral\t meeting  of the Society was held and  was  in\tthat
\ncapacity  entrusted with its funds.  He worked as such\ttill
\nAugust\t10,  1960.  He was accordingly responsible  for\t the
\ncash  and  maintenance of current accounts  of\tthe  Society
\nduring\tthe period in question.\t Turning to the Bye-laws  of
\nthe  Society,  bye-law no. 41 prescribes the duties  of\t the
\nSecretary.   According\tto this bye-law\t the  Secretary\t has
\ninter alia :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “(3)  To  make disbursement and  to  obtain
\n\t      vouchers\tand  to receive\t payments  and\tpass
\n\t      receipts, under the general or special  orders
\n\t      of the Board of Directors on this behalf\tfrom
\n\t      time to time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  (4)\t To keep all accounts and  registers
\n\t      required by the rules.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  (13)\t To  countersign cash book in  token
\n\t      of  the balance being correct and\t to  produce
\n\t      the  cash balance. whenever called upon to  do
\n\t      so by the Chairman or any person authorised to
\n\t      do so.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   In the absence of the Secretary the Board
\n\t      of  Directors  may authorise  the\t Manager  to
\n\t      perform the duties of the Secretary.
\n\t\t   The Board of Directors may also authorise
\n\t      the  Manager to perform any of the  duties  of
\n\t      the  Secretary to facilitate, the\t working  of
\n\t      the Society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   Receipts passed on behalf of the  Society
\n\t      shall  be,  signed by  the  Secretary.   Share
\n\t      certificates and other-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
774<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      documents shall be signed by the Secretary and
\n\t      one member of Board of Directors jointly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Byelaw\t42 contains directions I regarding advances  against
\nproof goods and clause (1) of this byelaw provides :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “(1)  The Board of Directors shall, at\t the
\n\t      beginning\t of the session, fix the  amount  of
\n\t      advance,\tindicating  the\t percentage  of\t the
\n\t      market price of produce or goods pledged\twith
\n\t      the society, that may be granted to a  member.
\n\t      Such  limits may be fixed for  different\tcom-
\n\t      modities\t and  varied  from  time   to\ttime
\n\t      according\t  to  fluctuation  in\tmarkets\t  or
\n\t      otherwise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  It  shall also be competent for the  Board
\n\t      of Directors to call on a borrower at any time
\n\t      before the due date to repay a portion of\t the
\n\t      loan   or\t  advance  issued  or\tto   produce
\n\t      additional  security for the outstanding\tloan
\n\t      or advance within a time fixed by them, if  in
\n\t      their opinion, there is fall or likely to be a
\n\t      fall  in\tthe market value of the\t produce  or
\n\t      goods pledged.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Under  byelaw  44  loans may be granted  to\t members  in
\nsuitable  cases\t on  such terms and  conditions\t as  regards
\nindividual  and maximum limits, repayment of loan,, rate  of
\ninterest  thereon  etc.,  as may be fixed by  the  Board  of
\nDirectors  from\t time  to time.\t According  to\tthe  learned
\njudicial  Commissioner “the overall picture” emerging  .from
\nthe evidence on the record, to quote his own words, it
\n\t\t  “(1)\tA  sum of Rs. 18,200\/- was  said  to
\n\t      have been disbursed in 1958 and 1959.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   (2)\t It was said to have been repaid  in
\n\t      the last week of June, 1959 towards the end of
\n\t      the co-operative year of 1959  and long  after
\n\t      the maximum period of 6 months allowed by rule
\n\t      42 (4) of the byelaws.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   (3)\t The  same amount was again said  to
\n\t      have  been  ,disbursed in a few  days  in\t the
\n\t      first  week of July commencing with  the\tnext
\n\t      cooperative year (1959-60).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   (4)\t Except the 2nd and 4th respondents,
\n\t      the  others  were\t not  members  of  the\t Co-\n<\/p>\n
\t      operative\t Society and in this regard the\t 1st
\n\t      respondent disregarded sub-rule (1) ,of r.  42
\n\t      of the byelaws.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   (5)\t The  1st respondent did not  obtain
\n\t      any general or special orders of the Board  of
\n\t      Directors\t  to  make  the\t disbursements\t and
\n\t      violated sub-rule (1) of r. 42 of Ext. P-41.\n<\/p>\n
775<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t (6)\t Ext.\tP-56 and P-59 show that\t the
\n\t      alleged collections of the monies in June 1959
\n\t      was false and that the accounts were got up.
\n\t\t (7)\t The  fact  that a discount  of\t Rs.\n<\/p>\n
\t      10\/-  was paid to cash a cheque  on  29-6-1959
\n\t      shows  that the society had no funds  on\tthat
\n\t      day.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (8)\t None  of the alleged loanees was  a
\n\t      Jute  grower and no jute was deposited in\t the
\n\t      godowns  of  the society before  the  advances
\n\t      were  made  and in this regard  the  mandatory
\n\t      provisions  of sub-r. (2) of r. 42  were\talso
\n\t      disregarded by the 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (9)\t A  number of adjustments were\tmade
\n\t      in  the Accounts to show that the sum  of\t Rs.
\n\t      18,200\/- was disbursed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (10)\t The\tthree\tpersons\t  to\twhom
\n\t      ultimately the amounts were said to have\tbeen
\n\t      disbursed\t  are\tinterested   in\t  the\t 1st
\n\t      respondent.   The\t 4th respondent\t C.  C.\t Das
\n\t      Gupta is a relation of the 1st respondent\t and
\n\t      proved by P. Ws 1, 6 and 8 and as admitted  by
\n\t      the 4th respondent himself in Ext.  P-56.\t The
\n\t      3rd respondent Sudhir Ranjan Roy is a  servant
\n\t      of  D.W. I who is a co-Director of  the  Match
\n\t      Factory and friend of the 1st respondent.\t The
\n\t      3rd  respondent Haradhan Deb was appointed  by
\n\t      the  1st\trespondent  in the  C.M.S.  The\t 3rd
\n\t      respondent was also an employee of the  C.T.S.
\n\t      of which the 1st respondent was a Director.”
\n     On\t the basis of these observations the  appellant\t was
\nheld to ,have committed criminal breach of trust and to have
\neither\tmisappropriated\t or  misapplied\t the  funds  of\t the
\nSociety dishonestly to benefit himself of his relations\t and
\nfriends.  Counsel failed to point out any legal infirmity in
\nthe  final conclusion drawn in the impugned order  from\t the
\noverall picture.  Indeed, counsel, after a faint attempt  to
\nfind  fault with this conclusion felt constrained  to  admit
\nthat  the money had been advanced against the rules  of\t the
\nSociety and also to the persons not entitled to it, his only
\ncontention  in support of the appeal being that it  did\t not
\nconstitute  a  criminal offence and that in  any  event\t the
\nBoard  of  Directors  of the  Society  having  ratified\t the
\nadvances,  the\tfoundation for the criminal charge  must  be
\ndeemed to have disappeared.  We are unable to agree.\n<\/p>\n
     The  offence of criminal breach of trust  is  committed
\nwhen  a person who is entrusted in any manner with  property
\nor With dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it, or
\nconverts  it  to  his own use,\tor-dishonestly\tuses  it  or
\ndisposes it of in violation
\n776<\/span>
\nof  any direction of law prescribing the mode in  which\t the
\ntrust  is  to  be discharged, or  of  any  lawful  contract,
\nexpress or implied, made by him touching such discharge,  or
\nwilfully suffers any other person so to do.  The appellant’s
\nmanner\tof dealing with the money entrusted to\this  custody
\nclearly\t constitutes criminal breach of trust.\tCounsel\t was
\nnot  able  to  point out any provision\twhich  empowers\t the
\nDirectors  to prescribe the mode of making  advances,  which
\nviolates or is in breach of, or contrary to the Byelaws.  If
\nthe  Directors,-possess no authority to give any  directions
\ncontrary  to the byelaws they can scarcely claim  or  assume
\npower  to ratify violation of the Byelaws in the  matter  of
\ndealing\t with the trust money.\tOur attention was not  drawn
\nto  any over-riding provision conferring power on the  Board
\nof  Directors to ratify use of the trust money\tcontrary  to
\nthe directions contained in the Byelaws.  Exhibit P-27,\t the
\nresolution of the Board of Directors dated January 10, 1960,
\non  which reliance in support of’ the argument\twas  placed,
\nmerely\tstates “investments made by the\t Secretary  uptodate
\nare  hereby  approved” without pointing out  the  provisions
\nunder  which  such approval could validate breaches  of\t the
\nByelaws.  Incidentally it may be mentioned that the  learned
\nJudicial Commissioner also entertained some suspicion  about
\nthe  manner in which the meeting, in which  this  resolution
\nwas passed, was held.  This- contention of the counsel must,
\ntherefore, be repelled.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the  last submission the counsel made\ta  grievance
\nagainst\t the  joint  trial of  several\taccused\t persons  on
\nseveral items of embezzlement.\tAccording to him there was a
\nmisjoinder  of\tcharges which vitiated the  trial.   In\t our
\nopinion,  charges  under s. 408 and s. 477-A,  Indian  Penal
\nCode,  could,  in the circumstances of this case,  be  tried
\ntogether  and the joint trial of all the accused was  proper
\nand lawful.  Our attention was not drawn to any provision of
\nlaw  against the legality of the joint trial.  In any  event
\nno  failure  of\t justice in consequence of  the\t joinder  of
\ncharges\t was pointed out, with the result that the  question
\nof  misjoinder\tof  charges must be held  to  be  of  little
\nconsequence at the stage of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Before closing we may point out, as has repeatedly been
\nsaid  by  this\tCourt, that there is normally  no  right  of
\nappeal\tto  this Court in criminal matters except  in  cases
\nprovided :by Art. 134 ( 1 ) (a) and (b) of the Constitution.
\nClause\t(c)  of\t this Article empowers\tthe  High  Court  to
\ncertify cases to be fit for appeal to this Court.  The\tword
\n“certify”  is  a  strong word;\tit  postulates\texercise  of
\njudicial  discretion by the High Court and  the\t certificate
\nshould ordinarily show on-the face of it that the discretion
\nwas invoked and properly exercised.  This Court should be in
\na  position  to\t know  that the High  Court  has  not  acted
\nmechanically
\n777<\/span>
\nbut  has applied its mind.  A certificate under this  clause
\nis  impermissible on questions of fact and when a case\tdoes
\nnot disclose a substantial question of law or principle then
\nthe  certificate granted by the High Court is liable  to  be
\nrevoked\t by  this  Court,  though  such\t prima\tfacie\tnon-
\ndisclosure would not by itself automatically invalidate\t the
\ncertificate.  In the case in hand no substantial question of
\nlaw or principle was made out at the bar and the certificate
\nwas  clearly  misconceived  though it  vaguely\tstates\tthat
\nseveral questions of law are involved.\tThe appeal fails and
\nis dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\tAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
OSupCI(NP)701-5
\n778<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1543, 1970 SCR (3) 770 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: JOY SHANKAR BHATTACHARYYA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/02\/1970 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. RAY, A.N. CITATION: 1971 AIR 1543 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-03T03:27:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-03T03:27:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970\"},\"wordCount\":2482,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970\",\"name\":\"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-03T03:27:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-03T03:27:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970","datePublished":"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-03T03:27:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970"},"wordCount":2482,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970","name":"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-03T03:27:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-kumar-gupta-vs-joy-shankar-bhattacharyya-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya on 23 February, 1970"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116004","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=116004"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116004\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}