BANWARILAL JHUNJHUNWALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions may be disposed of together since they raise the same question - in fact two of them are from the same case

(2.) The petitioners are some of the accused persons in C.C. Nos. 1 and 2 on the file of Shri T.R. Balakrishna Iyer, one of the two special judges appointed under S.6(i) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, XLVI of 1952 for the whole State of Kerala and specified under S.7(2) of the Act as the judge to try these cases. (Crl. R.P. No. 44 is by accused 1 and 2 and Crl. R.P. No. 55 by the 3rd accused in C. C. No. 1; and Crl. R.P. No. 45 is by accused 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 2). Objection was taken to the trial on the score of want of territorial jurisdiction, but by two separate orders, dated 18th January 1958, the learned special judge overruled the objection and proceeded to frame charges under S.251-A (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners seek to set aside those orders and to quash the charges, the principal ground taken being, again, want of jurisdiction.

(3.) The facts relevant for the present purpose are brief: Accused 1 and 2 in each case whom I shall hereafter call the contractors (or rather the respective firms of which they are partners.) entered into contracts with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi, for the supply of timber (bottom boards for railway wagons) of certain specified varieties to the Central Railway administration. In C. C. No. 1, the contract was for the supply of a total quantity of 1306. 5 tons, at a cost of about Rs. 4 lakhs, in three varieties of hardwood, Aini, Kalpine and Haldu. The contract was concluded in July 1955, and the several consignees were the District Controller of Stores, Central Railway, Matunga, Bombay, the Assistant Controller of Stores, Central Railway, Lallaguda (Hyderabad) and the Assistant Controller of Stores, Central Railway, Jhansi (U. P). In C.C.2, the contract was for the supply of a total quantity of 307 1/2 tons at a cost of about Rs. 95,000 in the species, Benteak, Biney and Haldu to the same consignees, and the contract was concluded in February 1956. The supply in both the cases was completed by August 1956, and, in accordance with the terms of the contract, on despatch of the several consignments, the contractors from time to time drew 90 percent of the price thereof, from the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, New Delhi, on the strength of certificates issued by the inspecting officers nominated by the Director General of Supplies to the effect that the timber was of the contract quality. The contractors in both the cases reside and carry on business at Bombay, and their bills were submitted from that place. The bills were passed at New Delhi by the Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer (on behalf of the Pay and Accounts Officer) and payment was made by him by means of cheques issued at New Delhi and encashed by the contractors at Bombay.