9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Allegations of unauthorized withdrawals from trust funds - Requirement of mens rea under Section 35(1) of the Act. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard appeals arising from complaints filed by the Charity Commissioner, State of Gujarat under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The complaints alleged unauthorized withdrawals from trust funds by the accused trustees. The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court of Gujarat acquitted them, citing lack of proof of trusteeship during the alleged offenses. The State of Gujarat and the Charity Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the acquittal. In the first complaint, the 1st accused was alleged to have withdrawn trust funds for personal use and reimbursed them later. The other accused were accused of allowing this contravention. The accused trustees denied being in office during the relevant period and claimed ignorance of the withdrawals. The 1st accused defended the withdrawals as from his private account. The Supreme Court found no evidence against accused 2 to 10, leading to the failure of the case against them. Regarding the 1st accused, the Court noted the lack of evidence linking him to the trust fund withdrawals. The prosecution relied on an alleged letter and the accused's statement, but the Court found insufficient proof to establish guilt. The Court emphasized the importance of considering evidence as a whole and not selectively to infer guilt. Despite these findings, the Court proceeded to examine the requirement of mens rea under Section 35(1) of the Act. The High Court deliberated on whether mens rea should be read into Section 35(1) of the Act. The Court analyzed the statutory duty imposed on trustees to safeguard trust funds and the regulatory nature of the provision. It considered the principle of mens rea in criminal offenses and exceptions to its application, especially in regulatory statutes. The Court cited previous judgments emphasizing the necessity of mens rea in criminal offenses unless expressly excluded by the statute. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the offense under Section 35(1) of the Act was quasi-criminal and regulatory in nature. It noted that the provision imposed an absolute liability punishable with a fine, without carrying any stigma of criminal conviction. Therefore, the Court concluded that mens rea should not be read into the offense under Section 35(1) of the Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused trustees by the High Court.
|
