What was the core dispute in Kedar Nath Bajoria?

Whether the roof damage in the requisitioned godowns was caused by military use and whether compensation claims were honest or fraudulent.

Which laws were involved?

IPC Sections 420 and 120B, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and constitutional points under Articles 14, 20, and 136.

What did the Supreme Court find about the damage?

Damage flowed from construction defects and natural wear, not from military misuse; the military could not be blamed for the roof condition.

Were all criminal charges proved?

Conspiracy circumstances existed, but charges under IPC 420 and PC Act 5(2) did not sustain on the evidence presented.

Was there any procedural concern?

Yes. The Court noted serious irregularity—key matters were not put to the accused under Section 342 CrPC.

Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal

AIR 1953 SC 404 • Criminal Law • Corruption • Articles 14/20/136 • Evidence & Procedure

Supreme Court of India Bench: Constitutional Bench Citation: AIR 1953 SC 404 ~6 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 24 Oct 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal; IPC 420; 120B; PC Act 5(2) SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Articles 14, 20, 136; CrPC 342; military liability; godown roofs

Quick Summary

Godowns of Shiva Jute Press were used by the military. Later, the owners claimed roof damage and sought compensation. Accounts prepared by one officer were called fraudulent by his successor. The Special Court convicted the appellants; the High Court affirmed. In the Supreme Court, the core finding was: roof damage came from construction defects and natural wear, not misuse by the military. Conspiracy circumstances existed, but cheating and corruption charges did not hold.

Damage: inherent defects, not military use.
Serious procedural lapse: key points not put under Section 342 CrPC.
IPC 420 & PC Act 5(2) not sustained; appeals dismissed.

Issues

Was there actual damage to the godown roofs?
If yes, was the military responsible for that damage?
Did the evidence prove cheating (IPC 420) and corruption (PC Act 5(2)) beyond reasonable doubt?

Rules

IPC 120B: Agreement to do an unlawful act = conspiracy.
IPC 420: Cheating + dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
PC Act 1947, s.5(2): Criminal misconduct by public servants.
Articles 14, 20, 136: Equality, protection in penalties, Supreme Court’s special leave.
CrPC 1898, s.342: Accused must be questioned on key incriminating facts.

Facts (Timeline)

View Timeline

Firm: Kedar Nath Mohanlal — managing agents for Shiva Jute Press Ltd.

Government requisitioned godowns (including roofs 19 & 20 — continuous, called roof 20) for military use.

Military possession for about two years. Compensation claims made for roof damage and alleged jute damage from leaks.

Accounts prepared by Area Lands & Hirings Disposals Officer (Hari Ram); successor flagged them as fraudulent.

Special Court (Alipore, Calcutta): two acquitted; appellants convicted and fined.

Calcutta High Court: convictions affirmed by common judgment.

Supreme Court (constitutional bench): appeals under Article 136; Article 20 affected fine but not imprisonment.

Timeline visual for the Kedar Nath Bajoria case — Visual timeline (optional learning aid).

Arguments

Appellant: State

Claims were inflated and backed by faulty accounts.
Any roof issues were due to age and poor construction, not military use.
Criminal liability arose from dishonest claims.

Respondents: Bajoria & Ors.

Roofs were harmed during military possession; compensation is due.
Calculations were official; no dishonest intent.
Convictions rest on conjecture; key points not put under s.342 CrPC.

Judgment

View Visual

Roof damage traced to defective Tee-iron supports and natural wear.
Military not responsible for repair of these private godowns.
No jute present; even with leakage, jute damage claim did not arise.
Serious irregularity: lack of proper s.342 CrPC questioning.
Conspiracy circumstances existed, but IPC 420 and PC Act 5(2) not proved; appeals dismissed.

Judgment overview graphic for Kedar Nath Bajoria case

Ratio (Core Principle)

If physical damage is due to inherent defects and natural wear, liability does not shift to a temporary possessor. Criminal charges of cheating/corruption require clear proof, not suspicion. Accused must be fairly questioned on incriminating points (s.342 CrPC).

Why It Matters

Separates natural wear from actionable damage.
Reinforces due process—proper questioning of the accused.
Clarifies evidentiary threshold for IPC 420 and PC Act 5(2).

Key Takeaways

No Military Liability: Roof defects were pre-existing.
Evidence > Suspicion: Cheating must be proved.
Procedural Fairness: s.342 questioning is vital.

Compensation Claims: Must reflect real, provable loss.
Articles 14/20/136: Operated within limits here.
Result: Appeals dismissed; cheating/corruption not made out.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: BAJORIA = Built-in Age, Just Old Roofs, Irregular Asking

Built-in Age: Damage from inherent defects and wear.
Just Old Roofs: No military blame; no jute loss.
Irregular Asking: s.342 lapse flagged by the Court.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was roof damage due to military use, and did evidence prove cheating/corruption?

Rule

IPC 120B/420; PC Act 5(2); Articles 14/20/136; CrPC 342 (fair questioning).

Application

Evidence showed structural defects and natural wear; no proof of jute loss or dishonest inducement.

Conclusion

No liability on military; cheating/corruption not made out; appeals dismissed.

Glossary

IPC 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
IPC 120B: Criminal conspiracy.
PC Act 5(2): Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
CrPC 342 (1898): Mandatory questioning of accused on incriminating facts (old Code).

FAQs

The roofs had weak Tee-iron supports and aged tiles. Damage came from these defects and time, not from military activity.

One officer’s accounts were later questioned by his successor. On the full record, cheating or corruption was not proved beyond doubt.

The Court noted there was no jute in the godown. So even if there were leaks, there was no chance of jute loss on those facts.

Yes. Key matters were not put to the accused under Section 342 CrPC. The Court called this a serious irregularity.

Quick Nav

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related