MOHD AQIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi District Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as the DDCA) is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Its affairs are managed by a General Committee as per the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. During the year 1979-80, the Board of Directors consisted of the following : -

(2.) Shri Satish Mehra, accused No.5 s/o late Shri R.P. Mehra, President, was an employee in the Bank of India, Ansari Road Branch, Daryaganj, Delhi. Shri Satpal, accused No.6 was working as the Typist in the office of the DDCA. Shri Sushil Malhan, accused No.7 was a contractor attending to some construction work of the D.D.C.A. Shri Mohd.Aqil, accused No.8, Shri Sami Ahmed, accused No.9 and Shri Mumtazuddin, accused No. 10 are the real brothers. They had floated a firm for obtaining commission from the Association.

(3.) On 18-9-1981, Shri N.D. Bhatia, Director (Inspection and Investigation), Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, lodged a report with the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, regarding the affairs of the DDCA, alleging therein that payments amounting to about Rs. 1,18,000/- have been made as commissions to certain parties for procuring advertisements, fixing of hoardings and bookings of stalls in the Test match-ground, whereas the advertisements were released by the parties directly to the DDCA on which no commission was payable, during the time of Fourth Indo-Australia and Second Indo-Pakistan Test matches held respectively during the months of Oct. and Dec., 1979. It is also alleged that on a sample check of the accounts, it was noticed that few of the leading industrial organisations had released their advertisements to the DDCA directly and there was no intermediary or agent involved in the same. Under the circumstances, the payment of commission to the so-called agents was not genuine and the funds of the DDCA had been dishonestly siphoned by its office-bearers and that the agents had been obviously brought in as a camouflage and cover for committing criminal breach of trust in respect of the funds of the DDCA.