M G DESAI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , J. : By order dated 12/02/1957, this court remanded the proceeding in this appeal to the High Court of Bombay with a direction that proper steps be taken for recording a finding on the question whether the sanction for the prosecution of the appellants was accorded by the Central Government under Indian Ordinance No. III of 1946 or under the Bhor State Ordinance, i.e., the Ordinance which was in force in the Bhor State. Pursuant to this direction, the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (A. C. Branch), Poona recorded a finding that sanction had been given by the Central Govt., under the Indian Ordinance No. III of 1946 and also under the Bhor State Ordinance of 1946, but primarily the sanction was given under the Ordinance in force in the Bhor State. The Additional Sessions Judge, Poona to whom the record was submitted for his opinion recorded a finding that the sanction was granted under the Ordinance which was in force in the State of Bhor. The High Court at Bombay did not record any express finding on this question.

(2.) TO appreciate the pleas raised in this appeal, certain material facts may be briefly set out.

(3.) IT is the case for the prosecution that the two appellants had in their possession on 12/01/1946, high denomination bank notes of the aggregate value of Rs. 10,55,000 and in order to circumvent the provisions of S. 6, Cl. 9 of the Ordinance, in conspiracy with one H. R. Karandikar split up the amount of Rs. 10,55,000 into three amounts of Rs. 9,69,000 Rs. 24,000 and Rs. 62,000 and by making declarations known by them to be false exchanged the high denomination bank notes from the Bhor Treasury through the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay on 21/01/1946, and received payment on 4/02/1946. IT was the case for the prosecution that the appellants and Karandikar declared that out of the sum of Rs. 10,55,000, Rs. 9,69,000 were received in deposit with the Laxmi Textile Mills, though it was known by them that there were no such deposits received by the company; that they declared that Rs. 24,000 were received in the cloth import department of the Laxmi Textile Mills Ltd. on 9/01/1946, from one Keshav Govind Agashe when in fact no such amount was received, and that it was declared that Rs. 62,000 were received by Laxmi Trading Company from one Mrs. C. Vimal Ben of Kurundwad on 9/01/1946 and the same amount was obtained by the 1st appellant on 11/01/1946 for a theatre belonging to the Laxmi Trading Company when in fact no such amount was received by the Laxmi Trading Company.