9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt.) Ltd., who were the managing agents of a company called Richardson Cruddas Ltd. He and his brother Tulsidas Mundra were also directors of Richardson Cruddas Ltd. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was the largest shareholder, filed a petition in the High Court of Calcutta being Matter No. 357 of 1957 seeking relief against mismanagement of Richardson Cruddas Ltd. under ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent and other directors were impleaded as party-respondents to the petition. The High Court, on the application of the Life Insurance Corporation, made an interim order sometime in December 1957 appointing Sir Dhirendra Mitra as Special Officer to manage the affairs of Richardson Cruddas Ltd. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . as a result of this probe was that Richard-son Cruddas Ltd. has been defrauded of an aggregate sum of ₹ 10,60,900 representing the amounts of the two bills and that amount had been siphoned off to S. B. Industrial Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. by using these two bills, which were forged, as genuine and they made a report to this effect to the Special officer. The Special Officer, on receipt of the report, made an application to the Company Judge for a direction that he might be authorised to lodge a complaint with the police for further investigation into these facts set out in the report. The Company Judge gave the necessary direction and the Special officer thereupon moved the police for making further investigation in the matter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he had no jurisdiction to proceed further with the trial of the respondent and he accordingly discharged the respondent by an order dated 27th April 1967. The State being aggrieved by this judgment and order passed by Mr. Justice Bagchi in the exercise of original criminal jurisdiction, preferred a revision application against the same on the appellate side of the High Court. The respondent raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the revision application on the ground that it was not competent to the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction against an order made by a judge of the High Court in a Sessions trial. Since this preliminary objection raised a question of some importance it was referred to a full Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Full Bench rejecting the revision application of the State and on this application, leave was granted by the High Court under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution and that is how Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1971 is before us. We will first deal with Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1971. If that criminal appeal is allowed and it is held that s. 195(1) (c) has no applicability in the present case, it would become unnecessary to consider the other two criminal appeals. Now, s. 195(1)(c) provides that no court shall take cognisance of an offence described in s. 463 or punishable under ss. 471, 475 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code where such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of any d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking, on the strength of these two bills, false entries in the books of account of Richardson Cruddas Ltd. crediting the aggregate sum of ₹ 10,60,900/- in the account of S. B. Industrial Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and debiting it in the machinery account. This offence was alleged to have been committed by the respondent on 24th and 29th June, 1955 long before the proceeding in Matter No. 357 of 1957 commenced and he became a party to that proceeding and it was not committed by him in his capacity as such party, that is, after having become a party to the proceeding. Now, at one time there was sharp cleavage of opinion amongst various High Courts in regard to the true interpretation of s. 195(1) (c). Some High Courts held that to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he interpretation of s. 195(1) (c) was reaffirmed by this Court in Raghunath v. State of U.P.(2) and Mohan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan(3). It must inevitably follow, on this view, that since the offence charged against the respondent was one alleged to have been committed by him before he became a party to the proceeding in Matter No. 357 of 1957, s. 195(1)(c) had no application. It may also be noted that neither of the two forged bills of Indian Machine Tools Co. was produced or given in evidence in the proceeding in Matter No. 357 of 1957. Both these forged bills formed part of the record of Richardson Cruddas Ltd. and they were taken possession of by the Special Officer along with the other record of the Company and nobody produced t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
