STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAYANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave at the instance of the State of Maharashtra is directed against the decision of a Full Bench of the High Court of Bombay dealing with an interesting. question under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 ('Act' for short). Several prosecutions were launched against the respondents for offences punishable under Ss. 20 and 21 of the Act on the basis of investigation carried out under S. 5 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ('Code' for short) and seizure of documents as a result of search conducted under S. 165 of the Code. Two cases ended in conviction and seven prosecutions resulted in acquittal. Against the conviction two separate appeals were carried to the Court of Sessions which were dismissed. The convicted accused carried two criminal revisions to the High Court. Against acquittal in other prosecutions the State preferred appeals to the High Court. The seven criminal appeals and the two criminal revisions were ultimately referred to a Full Bench for deciding the question raised, viz., as to whether or not the cases in question would be governed by the provisions of S. 22-B of the Act.

(2.) The Full Bench has come to the following conclusions (State of Maharashtra v. Jayantilal Popatlal Chandrani, 1979 Cri LJ 1231): (1) By Sections 22A and 22B inserted into the Act by Amending Act 62 of 1960, the application of the provisions of S. 5 (2) of the Code in respect of offences under the Act was not excluded. Therefore, even with these provisions in the Act it was open to the prosecution to make investigation under the Code and in exercise of powers vested under S. 165 thereof search and seizure could be effected;

(3.) The High Court referred to an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the same Court where it had been held that the insertion of the two provisions by Act 62 of 1960 did not have the effect of excluding the application of the Code to prosecutions under the Act but in view of the conclusions indicated above, it did not agree with the earlier view of the Division Bench that the presumption under S. 22B of the Act also extended to documents seized in investigation under the Code without the aid of S. 22A of the Act.