RAJENDRAPAUL RAMASARAN DASS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal by special leave was tried in the Court of Session for Greater Bombay at Bombay for offences under Section 467, under Section 471 read with Section 467 and under Section 420, I.P.C. According to the prosecution the appellant was running an octroi clearing agency under the name and style of "National Octroi Clearing Agency" at the Mulund check-post. He used to attend to certain transactions relating to the transport companies, one of those companies being the Montgomery Transport Company. On December 16, 1968 a truck belonging to the said transport company bearing No. MPH 2147 arrived at the check-post carrying a Depleix Machine to be delivered to Messrs. Imperial Tobacco Company. There were two drivers and one cleaner in the truck. On being approached by them the appellant telephoned to manager Bakshi of the Transport Company to arrange for the payment of octroi which amounted to more than Rs. 8,000/-. The Manager, Bakshi and Director, Inderjit Singh went to the Imperial Tobacco Company the following day and after getting Rs. 8,196/- for the octroi reached the Mulund check-post. The amount was handed over to the appellant in the presence of the driver. Actually only Rs. 8,180/- were required for the octroi with the result that Rs. 16/- were paid back to Messrs. Imperial Tobacco Company by means of a cheque. During the investigation of another case arising out of an alleged forged receipt relating to octroi in respect of some imports by Messrs. Pure Drinks Private Ltd., it came to light that proper octroi had not been paid on December 17, 1968 in respect of the transaction in question in the present case. The Assistant Assessor and Collector, Shri Karkhanis, after sending his Superintendent Govind Charan to the office of Messrs. Imperial Tobacco Company he himself also visited the Company's office and they both felt that the receipt for the payment of octroi held by the said Company was not genuine. Having failed to trace the necessary relevant documents in the office files Shri Karkhanis lodged the complaint in February, 1969 and a case was registered.

(2.) The appeal to the High Court was dismissed in limine with one word "Dismissed".

(3.) Before us on appeal by special leave the short point but one of vital importance to the appellant requiring our decision is whether the High Court was justified on the facts and circumstances of this case in unceremoniously dismissing the appeal in limine with one word "Dismissed" without making a speaking order indicating the reasons for the dismissal. The facts briefly stated by us and a close study of the lengthy judgment of the trial Court quite clearly show that the appeal in the High Court did raise points which were not only arguable but were also substantial requiring critical scrutiny and serious appraisal and evaluation of the prosecution evidence and the circumstances of the case. The importance of the opinion of the High Court on arguable points requiring consideration on appeal in that Court when questions of fact or law are open to challenge by the appellant was emphasised more than 20 years ago by this Court in Mushtak Hussein v. State of Bombay, 1953 SCR 809 = (AIR 1953 SC 282) where Mahajan J., (As he then was) observed at p. 820 :