LEGAL REMEMBRANCER OF GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. HARIDAS MUNDRA:HARIDAS MUNDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of the same facts and it would, therefore, be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment. The respondent in all the three appeals is one Haridas Mundra. He was at all material times the managing director of S. B. Industrial Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., who were the managing agents of a company called Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. He and his brothers Tulsidas Mundra were also directors of Richaredson and 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 and Cruddas Ltd. under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. 1956. The respondents 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 and Cruddas Ltd. There was an audit report made by M/s. Gutgutia and Co., Charted Accountants, in regard to the accounts of Richardsan and Cruddas Ltd., but the special Officer was not satisfied with this report and he, therefore, afterobtaining directions from the Company Judge, appointed M/s Ferguson and Co. a reputed firm of Charted Accountants, to examine the accounts of the Company and submittheir report. Ferguson and Co. found, as a result of their investigation, that there were two bills in the records of Company, one of the Rs. 4,12,000/- dated 20th June 1955 and the other for Rs. 6,18,900/- dated 27th June, 1955 purporting to be issued by a firm called Indian Machine Tools Co. having its address at 7. Mission Row, Calcutta, showing purchase of certain machinery by Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. from Indian Machine Tools Co. and on the strength of these two bills, entries were made in the books of account of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. on 24th June, 1955 in respect of the first bill and on 29th June, 1955 in respect of the second bill, crediting the amounts of the bills to S. B. Industrial Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and debiting to the machinery account. On making inquires, Ferguson and Co. discovered that there was no firm of Indian Machine Tools Co. in existence at 7, Mission Row, Calcutta and no machinery was in fact purchased or received by Richardson and Cruddas. Ltd. as shown in the two bills supposed to have been made out by Indian Machine Tools Co. The conclusion reached by Ferguson and Co. as a result of this probe was that Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. had been defrauded of an aggregate sum of Rs. 10,60,900/- representing the amount of the two bills and that amount had been siphoned off to S. B. Industrial Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. by using and 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. The Special Police Establishment started the investigation and ultimately submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent and Tulsidas Mundra in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The respondent and Tulsidas Mundra were committed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to stand their trial before the HIGH Court on charges under Ss. 120B, 409, 471 read with S. 468 and S. 477A against the respondent and Ss. 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code against Tulsidas Mundra. When the trial commenced before the High Court, the Public Prosecutor made two applications on 17th April, 1967, one of for amending the charges against the respondent by dropping Sections 120B and 409 and Section 418 of the other for withdrawing the prosecution against Tulsidas Mundra. Both these applications were allowed by the High Court, with the result that the trial proceeded only against the respondent on charges under Secs. 418, 471 read with Section 468, and Section 477A. Mr. Justice Bagchi, before whom the trial proceeded, felt that the he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial in view of Section 195 (1) (c) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and he, therefore, requested the Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the respondent to argue the point as to the applicability of that section. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced before him on both sides, delivered an elaborate judgment holding that by reason of Section 195 (1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which applied in the present case, 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.

(2.) The State being aggrieved by this judgment and order passed by Mr. Justice Bugchi in the exercise of original criminal jurisdiction, preferred a revision application against the same on the appellate side of the High Court. The respondentraised 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 Session trial Since this preliminary objection raised a question of some importance, it was referred to a Full Bench and by a judgment dated 16th June,1970 the Full Bench upheld the preliminary objection and held that the High Court had no jurisdiction in revision to interfere with any judgment, or order or sentence passed by a Judge of the High Court in the exercise or its original criminal jurisdiction and accordingly rejected the revision application.

(3.) It appears that the State had in the meantime filed in the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Bagchi. This application was rejected by the learned Judge by an order dated 28th January, 1971 on the ground that it was not a judgment or a final order or a sentence falling within Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The State thereupon preferred two petitions in thisCourt for Special leave to appeal, one against the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Bagchi discharging the respondent and the other against the judgment and order of the same learned Judge rejecting the application of theState for leave to appeal to this Court. This Court allowed both the petitions andgranted special leave and hence we have Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1971 directed against the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Bagchi discharging the respondent and Criminal AppealNo. 257 of 1971 against the judgment order of that learned Judge refusing leave to appeal to the State. The State also preferred an application in the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment and order ofthe 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.