STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HARSHAD K SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eight Criminal Revision Applications are disposed of by this common judgment as the point involved is the same and the accused in all the eight Revision Applications are also the same.

(2.) The two accused are alleged to be the Managing Director and Joint Managing Director respectively of Laxmichand Bhagaji Limited, a Company carrying on business as money-lenders. In four revision applications, viz. Criminal Revision Application Nos. 790 of 1979, 792 of 1979, 793 of 1979 and 794 of 1979 the charge against the two accused is under section 19(1), read with section 34 of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946, in that they failed to deliver annual statement of accounts signed by the money-lender or his agent of any amount that may be outstanding against a debtor and failed to deliver statement containing particulars specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 19 to the Assistant Registrar. The charge in the remaining four revision applications viz., Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 791 of 1979, 795 of 1979, 796 of 1979 and 797 of 1979 is under section 18(1), (2) and (3) read with section 34 of the Bombay Money-Lender Act, 1946 for not maintaining Cash Book and Ledger in the prescribed form, for not delivering to the debtor statement of the amount, the date of the loan and of its maturity, the nature of the security, if any, for the loan, to the debtor within the prescribed time and a statement containing the particulars referred to in Clause (a)(i) to the Assistant Registrar and receiving payment from the debtor without passing receipt.

(3.) On 26-6-1978 Shri A.H. Shaikh, Co-operative Officer (ML), Bombay filed eight complaints in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, for the alleged offence under sections 18(1), (2) and (3) read with section 34 and section 19(1) read with section 34 of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946. On the same day, viz. 26-6-1978, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ordered issue of summonses to the two accused persons, viz. the opponents. On 27th February, 1979, the accused filed written applications raising preliminary objections. The two accused challenged the validity of the prosecution on three grounds : firstly, that the accused could not have been prosecuted for whatever acts of commission or omission committed by them in their capacity as Director and Joint Director of the said company; secondly, that the business which the company in question carried on cannot be considered to be falling within the meaning of the expression "money-lender" of section 2(2) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946, and thirdly, that at the time the Court took cognizance of the offence, the sanction to prosecute as required by section 35-B of the said Act was not produced before the Court and since the sanction was not before the Court, the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and, therefore, the complaints should be dismissed. The first two grounds did not find favour with the learned Magistrate; but on the question of sanction, the trial Magistrate observed :---