1972 (12) TMI 80 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the proceedings by the complainant.
2. Effect of the order of withdrawal of the earlier complaint on the present proceedings.
3. Establishment of entrustment and breach of trust.
4. Suppression of material facts by the complainant.
5. Merits of the case based on the evidence on record.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Proceedings by the Complainant:

The High Court rejected the contention that the proceedings should be quashed because the complainant was an accused in a separate case under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947. The High Court held that the complainant being an interested party does not affect the maintainability of the present proceedings.

2. Effect of the Order of Withdrawal of the Earlier Complaint on the Present Proceedings:

The High Court dismissed the argument that the dismissal of the first complaint bars the current proceedings. It held that an order of dismissal under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, does not prevent a second complaint on similar facts, though such a complaint can be entertained only under exceptional circumstances. The High Court found that the present proceedings were justified despite the earlier order of discharge.

3. Establishment of Entrustment and Breach of Trust:

The High Court declined to rule on whether entrustment had been established, stating that it was difficult to make such a determination at that stage based on the evidence adduced. The High Court left it to the Magistrate to assess and appreciate the evidence. However, the High Court later contradicted this approach by considering the merits of the case in detail when dealing with the fifth contention.

4. Suppression of Material Facts by the Complainant:

The High Court accepted the argument that the complainant had suppressed material facts in both the original and the present complaints, which vitiated the proceedings. Specifically, the High Court noted omissions such as the failure to mention the civil suit filed against the complainant and the loan taken from the accused. The High Court held that this suppression rendered the proceedings bad and repugnant, thereby justifying their quashing.

5. Merits of the Case Based on the Evidence on Record:

The High Court, after an elaborate appreciation of the evidence, concluded that the evidence did not establish any breach of trust or conspiracy by the accused. The High Court held that the remaining witnesses would not materially affect the merits of the case and that their examination would prejudice the accused. Consequently, the High Court quashed the proceedings.

Supreme Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach inconsistent. While the High Court rightly declined to consider the evidence on entrustment at the initial stage, it later engaged in a detailed appreciation of evidence when addressing the merits of the case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have allowed the trial to proceed to its logical conclusion, especially given the advanced stage of the trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's interference was unwarranted, particularly as the accused had not challenged the proceedings at earlier stages. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and ordered the Presidency Magistrate to expedite the trial, allowing the examination of the remaining witnesses as previously directed.

Conclusion:

The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment quashing the charges and proceedings was set aside. The Presidency Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.