JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 1966, applicants 1 to 16 and 18 to 23 and four others, who are no more, were the officebearers and members of an association called Bullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange Limited, Agra (shortly 'Bullion Exchange'). Applicants 17 and 24 to 26 were its brokers. On 18-6-1966, the C. I. D., Crime Branch, Agra, raided the premises of the Bullion Exchange and its members and workers and took charge of a number of documents. As a result of the investigation, which followed, the police submitted a chargesheet under Section 120-B, IPC and Sec. 20 (e). 21 (a), 21 (b) and 21 (c) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 against the applicants and four others, now deceased, in the court of Magistrate 1st Class, Agra. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. Before the learned Magistrate, the accused pleaded that even on the allegations made in the Bharge-sheet no offence was made out against them and claimed to be discharged. The learned Magistrate took the view that the question could be decided only after the parties had adduced their evidence. Accordingly, on 22- 6-1976, he rejected the cLalm and directed the framing of the charge against them. By means of this application under Sec. 482, CrPC, the applicants have prayed that the pending proceedings against them be quashed.

(2.) IT has been alleged in the charge- sheet that in between the months of January and April, 1966, in district Agra, the applicants and some unknown persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, the object of which was to own or keep a place other than that of a recognised association to be used for the purposes of entering into, making or performing, whether wholly or in part, forward contracts or option transactions; to organise and conduct illegal forward trading in Linceed oil in the guise of nontransferable specific delivery contracts, without having to make or receive actual delivery of the commodity or by way of option transaction. More particularly, the object of the conspiracy was to so arrange things that non-transferable specific delivery contracts in Linseed oil could be entered into and worked out by payment of differences and not by actual delivery.

(3.) THE question to be considered is whether on the allegations made in the charge-sheet any offence is made out against the applicants. In order to appreciate and determine this question it will be necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Act as in force at the relevant time. Section 2 (i) defines which provides the delivery of goods and the payment of a price therefor either immediately or within such period not exceeding 11 days after the date of the contract,........."Section 2 (c) defines the 'forward contract' to mean a contract "for the delivery of goods at a further date and which is not a ready delivery contract." Section 2(m) defines specific delivery contract 'as meaning a forward contract, which provides for the actual delivery of specific qualities, or type of goods during specified future period at a price fixed thereby or to be fixed in the manner thereby agreed and in which the names of both the buyers and sellers ,are mentioned." Section 2 (f) defines ;a non-transferable specific delivery contract as meaning "a specific delivery contract, the rights or liabilities under which or under any delivery order, railway receipt, bill of landing, ware house receipt or any other document of title relating thereto are not transferable." A 'transferable specific delivery contract' is defind under Section 2 (m) as meaning "a specific delivery contract, which is not a non-transferable specific delivery contract."