6 Ran ( P C ) 142 စီရင်ထုံးပါအဆုံးအဖြတ်ကိစ္စ။[Part Fourteen]

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

6 Ran ( P C ) 142 

BHOGILAL BHIKACHAND AND OTHERS (Plaintiffs)

                      V.

ROYAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. (Defendants).

PRESENT: VISCOUNT HALDANE,LORD ATKINSON,LORD BLANESBURGH,LORD DARLING and LORD WARRINGTON OF CLYFFE.

စီရင်ထုံးပါအဆုံးအဖြတ်ကိစ္စ။[ Part Fourteen ]

————————————————————————

6 Ran ( P C ) 142 

BHOGILAL BHIKACHAND AND OTHERS (Plaintiffs)

                      V.

ROYAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. (Defendants).

PRESENT: VISCOUNT HALDANE,LORD ATKINSON,LORD BLANESBURGH,LORD DARLING and LORD WARRINGTON OF CLYFFE.

(On Appeal from the High Court at Rangoon.)

Appeal No. 103 of 1926 from a decree of the High Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction (June 15.1925) reversing a decree of the Court in its Original Jurisdiction (June 24.1924).

At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships intimated that the appeal would be allowed, and that the reasons would be delivered later.

December 16. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD BLANESBURGH.

J.C.* 1927 ,Dec. 16.

ပရီဗီကောင်စီကဒုတိယပြဿနာနှင့်စပ်လျဉ်း၍၊စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၁၅၇မှ၁၆၂တွင်အကျယ်တဝင့်စိစစ်သုံးသပ်သည်။

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၁၆၁၊တတိယအပိုဒ်၌၊အောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်၍ကောက်ယူဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

[Now, for reasons already given, that statement imputed to the second appellant would not, had he made it, have seemed to their Lordships to be necessarily false. 

But the tragedy is that he made no such statement. 

His own insurances being with the Norwich Union, his postal insurances were usually Rs. 50, and so he said. 

He said nothing at all to the effect above imputed to the appellants generally, while as to the regulation, his evidence was that he was quite aware of its existence.

It was the third appellant and not he who said he was ignorant of it. 

In other words, the conclusion of the learned Judges is based on a most regrettable mistake, and it follows that the only ground upon which they upheld what their Lordships have called the respondents' last contention cannot be sustained, and that the finding of the learned Trial Judge on this point must remain undisturbed.

In the result postal packet 217 was the seltsame packet] of diamonds which had been made up in the office of the first appellant and handed to the second appellant to be posted.]

အထက်ဖော်ပြပါစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၁၆၁၌၊အယူခံခုံရုံးကဒုတိယအယူခံတရားလိုထွက်ဆိုသည်ဆိုသောထွက်ချက်သည်တထစ်ချမမှန်ဟု၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကသဘောမရရှိကြောင်းဖော်ပြပြီး-

[ But the tregedy is that he made no such statement]

ဟုထောက်ပြခြင်းကိုသတ္တုချကြည့်ပါက၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီသည်သက်သေခံချက်ကိုကောင်းစွာလေ့လာကြောင်းပေါ်လွင်သည်။

ပရီဗီကောင်စီကဆက်လက်၍-

[ In other words, the conclusion of the learned Judges is based on a most regrettable mistake]

ဟုကောက်ချက်ချခြင်းကိုထောက်ချင့်ပါက၊အယူခံဝင်သောရန်ကုန်ဟိုက်ကုတ်လွှတ်တော်အယူခံခုံရုံး၏အဆုံးအဖြတ်ကို၊အဏုကြည့်မှန်ဘီလူးဖြင့်ကြည့်၍ဆုံးဖြတ်နိုင်သည်အထိသေချာပုံကိုသတိမူမိနိုင်သည်။

မှတ်ချက်။   ။စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၁၆၁၊တတိယစာပိုဒ်ပါ-

[ selfsame packet ]လာ[ selfsame ]သည်[ ထပ်တူထပ်မျှ ]ဟုအဓိပ္ပာယ်ရသည်။

တရားဝန်ကြီးဦးမေအောင်၏အဆုံးအဖြတ်ကိုပယ်ဖျက်ရန်မသင့်ကြောင်း၊သို့ဖြစ်၍ရန်ကုန်စာတိုက်ကြီး၌မှတ်ပုံတင်ပို့ရန်ဒုတိယအယူခံတရားလိုလက်ထဲသို့ထည့်လိုက်သောအထုပ်သည်၊စိန်ထုပ်ဟုကောက်ယူဆုံးဖြတ်သည်။

ပရီဗီကောင်စီကစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၁၆၁အဆုံးစာပိုဒ်နှင့်စာမျက်နှာ၁၆၂တွင်၊အထက်ပါအဖြေကိုအခြားတနည်းထုတ်ယူနိုင်သည်-

[ And this same conclusion, perhaps not less certainly, may be reached in another way. ]

ဟုညွှန်ပြပြီး၊အောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆက်လက်အကြောင်းပြပြန်သည်-

[The learned Appellate Judges, it will be remembered, found that the diamonds had been packed at the first appellant's premises, as deposed to by the witnesses present.

It was their opinion also that if a dummy parcel was in fact posted, as they strongly suspected, each and all of these witnesses were privy to the imposture. 

The learned Judges, however, did not apparently pause to consider what possible purpose had been served by the making up of the parcel which they found had taken place, but which, on this further view, had been only an idle ceremony.

Had they asked themselves that question, the answer to it, as their Lordships think, would not have been difficult.

Once find, as both Courts did, that the Parcel of diamonds was made up and handed for post to the second appellant, then the subsequent fraud can only be made even plausible by imputing it exclusively as a private and particular fraud to the second appellant and Mehta- as a fraud not only on the respondents, but on the first and third appellants as well.

But a fraud confined to the second appellant and Mehta has never been even alleged by the respondents, and that presumably for a very sound reason.

Had they made that charge, and had they failed to establish it they would have been left in the unfortunate position of having, at all events temporarily, affirmed the honesty of Pandya, who was alone responsible for the fixing of the Post Office insurance.

In other words, they would have deprived themselves of their main plank, unstable as it was, on which their charge of conspiracy rested.

The result is that, so soon as the making up of the parcel is accepted, as it has been by both Courts, fraud in the posting can only be brought home by a limitation being imported into the charge, which has never been made.]

[ dummy = ပုံတူ ]

[ in fact = အမှန်အားဖြင့်၊တကယ်တော့ ]

[ privy to = အတွင်းသိသိသော ]

[ imposture = အယောင်ဆောင်၍လိမ်လည်ခြင်း ]

[ did not apparently pause to consider = အလေးအနက်ဆင်ခြင်ခဲ့ပုံမပေါ် ]

[ what possible purpose had been served = မည်သို့အသုံးကျစရာရှိခဲ့သည်၊မည်သို့အကျိုးရှိခဲ့စရာရှိရာသည် ]

[ an idle = အချီးနှီးဖြစ်သော ]

[ ceremony = စာတိုက်ကြီးတွင်မှတ်ပုံတင်ပါဆယ်ထုပ်ကိုမှတ်ပုံတင်ပို့ခြင်း ]

[ Once = တပြိုင်နက် ]

[ Had they made that charge = ၎င်းတို့သည်ထိုသို့စွပ်စွဲခဲ့လျှင် ]

[ at all events = မည်သို့ပင်ဖြစ်စေ ]

[ main plank = အဓိကရပ်တည်ချက် ]

[ unstable as it was = ၎င်းရပ်တည်ချက်သည်၊မခိုင်လင့်ကစား ]

[ can only be brought home = ကောင်းကောင်းကြီးနားလည်သဘောပေါက်စေသည် ]

[ by a limitation being imported into the charge = စွပ်စွဲချက်တွင်ကန့်သတ်ချက်တရပ်ထည့်သွင်းကာ ]

———————————————————-