9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (1) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Saha. dishonestly and fraudulently started cheating the complainant's company by submitting false bills, ghost bills and duplicate bills in respect of challans already paid for and in such other manner obtained by false and fraudulent inducement large sums of money purporting to be the price of waste paper supplied to the complainant's company and during the Bengali years 1370 to 1373 B. S. corresponding to 1963 to 1967 cheated the complainant's company to the extent of about Rs. 1,56,785/-. It was also alleged in paragraph 8 of the petition that the accomplice of the accused Janaki Ballav Mukheriee had since admitted his guilt and made statements . Cognizance was taken under Section 420 Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner. Santosh Kumar Saha, but in view of the gravity of the offence the Court launched an enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same went on before the learned Munsif-Magistrate, 1st class 1 Barrackpore. In course of the enquiry the complainant was examined on 21-5-69 when he, inter alia, stated that Janaki Ballav Mukheriee admitted guilt to the complainant and others and therefore, they did not lodge accusatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ultimately prayed that Process may be' issued against the said Janaki Ballav Mukheriee as one of the accused and the enquiry be proceeded with. Shri D. B. Dutta. Munsif-Magistrate. 1st class. Barrackpore, who is the successor-in-office of the Previous incumbent, ultimately rejected the said prayer by his order dated the 1st July 1972 and issued summons on the aforesaid Janaki Ballav Mukheriee to appear in court for the purpose of being tendered pardon under Section 337 Criminal Procedure Code and of being examined as a witness. This order has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present Rule. 4. The contentions of Mrs. Jvotir-moyee Nag. Advocate (with Miss Renu Roy Choudhury Advocate), appearing in support of the Rule, are of two dimensions. The first dimension is one of law and relates tn the interpretation of Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mrs. Nag contended in this behalf that the learned Magistrate holding the enquiry erred in law in straightway summoning Janaki Ballav Mukheriee, who is stated to be an accomplice, for being examined as a witness on a tender of pardon and not as a co-accused before considering the question of granting par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to relate to an accused person only. For a proper meaning of the words, in the statute one has to refer in the first instance to the definition thereof. The word person as denned in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act (Act X of 1897) includes any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not; and the same is also the definition given in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid definition is wide enough and does not whittle down the meaning of the relevant words to denote accused persons only. 6. It is pertinent to refer in this context to the principles of interpretation of statute for ascertaining the proper meaning of the provisions contained in Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crawford in his Statutory Construction has laid down the various ways by which the meaning of statutes is to be ascertained and according to him the first source from which the legislative intent is to be sought is the words of the statutes. The principle of literal construction is the first and foremost elementary rule of construction. It has been laid down in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes that a statute is the will of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectfully agree with the aforesaid observations and I hold that to side effect to Mrs. Nag's interpretation of the words any person would be to travel beyond the words of the statute on a voyage of discovery. 7. A reference may now be made to the imprimatur of judicial decisions. bearing on the point at issue. In the case of Kashiram v. Emperor AIR 1923 Nar 248 : 24 Cri LJ 566 it was observed by Batten J. C. and Halifax, AJC at PP. 249 that. under Sections 337 and 338 Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary that the person to whom a pardon is tendered should himself be charged with an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session: all that is requisite is that the person to whom pardon is tendered who may not even be an accused in the case, should be supposed to have _ been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to an offence, triable exclusively by the Court of Session, with which another person is charged. A reference may also be made to the case of Lt. Commander Pascal Fernandas v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1968CriLJ550 . The decision is in the context of Section 8(21 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 but the provisions thereof a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
