NATWARLAL SHANKARLAL MODY Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay setting aside the order of the Presidency Magistrate, 16th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, framing charges and committing all the accused, except accused No. 3, to sessions.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is as follows: The Colaba Land & Mills Company Limited (hereinafter called the Company) is a public limited company incorporated in Bombay on July 1, 1880. In the year 1949 Vasudeo Jwalladutt Pilani (hereinafter called accused No. 1) became the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company and on July 20, 1950, he became its Managing Director. His step-brother, Kishenprasad Jwalladut Pilani (hereinafter called accused No. 2) was appointed as one of the Directors of the Company on May 18, 1948. In March 1949 accused No. 1 took some employees of the Company in his confidence and told them that they should arrange for payment of at least Rs. 10,000 per month to him from the stores of the Company. To implement this object, from the date of the said arrangement until March 1956, accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the help of accused Nos. 3 to 16 accused No. 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 were the employees of the Company, and accused Nos. 8, 11, 14 and 16 were its Managers from time to time; accused No. 6 was its storekeeper, accused No. 12 a clerk, accused No. 15 a cashier, and accused Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 13 were some of the dealers with the Company entered into many fraudulent transactions, committed offences of criminal breach of trust and forgeries and thereby large amounts, aggregating in all about Rs. 6 lakhs, belonging to the Company were misappropriated between March 14, 1949 and March 20, 1956. On those allegations a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate alleging that the accused were guilty of criminal conspiracy lasting for over 7 years and also of criminal breach of trust, forgeries and falsification of accounts. As many as 91 charges were levelled against the accused.

(3.) The learned Presidency Magistrate conducted an inquiry under s. 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after considering the entire material placed before him made the following order: (1) There should be one joint trial of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the employees, accused Nos. 6, 12 and 15 for conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust, forgeries and for the various offences alleged to have been committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. The learned Magistrate selected 52 of the offences and framed charges in regard to them. As some of the offences were exclusively triable by Sessions Court, he committed them to the City Sessions Court to stand their trial. (2) Another separate trial should be held in regard to accused Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 and 13 for conspiracy to commit criminal breaches of trust and for 24 offences which were alleged to have been committed by them in pursuance of that conspiracy. As the said offences were triable by the Presidency Magistrate, he proposed to proceed with the trial against them. And (3) in regard to seven transactions in which accused No. 7 was involved, the Magistrate held that he, along with accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6, should be separately tried in respect of each of those transactions; and as they were triable by him, he proposed to proceed with the trial against them. The learned Presidency Magistrate discharged accused Nos. 3, 4, 8, 11, 14 and 16.