CHANDULAL DAHYABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come in revision against the order of the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad by which a conviction and a fine of Rs. 100/inflicted on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Fourth Court Ahmedabad was confirmed for contravention of the provisions of sec. 35 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 in that he failed to invest the trust funds lying with him in authorized investments. The actual conviction is under the provisions of sec. 66 of the said Act. The facts leading to this offence are that the petitioner is the sole trustee of the Lunsawada Moti-pole Panch Parabadi Trust which is registered under the said Act. The object of the Trust is to feed birds with food-grains in the said Moti pole. It appears that this Trust is about 200 years old and there is no written instrument of Trust. It was alleged that in S.Y. 2013 (about 1957) a sum of Rs. 5901-45 Ps. was the cash balance of this Trust and it was invested in the firm of the petitioner bearing interest at the rate of 4 1/2 % per annum. After inquiries it was found by the Deputy Charity Commissioner that this amount was lying uninvested in contravention of sec. 35 of the said Act which says as follows :

(2.) Nothing in sub-sec. (1) shall affect any investment or deposit already made before the coming into force of the Bombay Public Trusts (Amendment) Act 1954 in accordance with a direction contained in the instrument of the trust:

(3.) This section says that in the circumstances mentioned therein viz. that where the property consists of money and where it could not be applied immediately or at any early date to the purposes of the public trust the trustee shall be bound to invest the surplus amount in authorized investments as mentioned in the said Act. An inquiry was made by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and it was found as stated above that an amount of Rs. 5901 Ps. was lying uninvested and it was not necessary to be kept for an immediate application or an application at an early date for the purpose of the trust. The petitioner was therefore asked by the Charity Commissioner to invest the said cash amount in accordance with the provisions of sec. 35(1) of the said Act. The petitioner thereafter from time to time asked for time to comply with the provisions of sec. 35(1) of the Act. It appears that thereafter on the 6th of May 1958 a notice was issued by the Charity Commissioner to the petitioner under sec. 55 of the Act asking the petitioner to obtain directions of the District Judge for the utilization of the said Trust Fund half the amount food-grains for birds and half cypress for secular education. The petitioner accordingly applied to the learned District Judge on 2/08/1958 and the learned District Judge by his order dated 23/10/1959 directed the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 3 400 out of the surplus income should be handed over to the Trustees of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ahmedabad on specific condition that the amount was to be spent for the purpose of a Veterinary Hospital run by that Society and on further condition that the Society submitted accounts so far as this amount was concerned to the Charity Commissioner every year. It appears that no directions were given by the learned District Judge in regard to the application of funds for secular education. In the meanwhile on 3rd September 1958 a notice was issued from the office of the Charity Commissioner for the prosecution of the petitioner. A sanction for this prosecution was given on 25/10/1918 and the actual complaint was lodged on the 7/01/1959 for the prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of sec. 66 of the sand Act.