HARPRASAD GHASHIRAM GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Harprasad G. Gupta (accused No. 1) was the manager and one Ardeshir Rustomji Mullan Phiroz (accused No. 2) was the Secretary of the Dhanraj Mills, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the mills). They were working under the orders and control of the accused No. 3, Ramgopal Ganapatrai Ruia who was the director of the mills, holding 60 per cent of the shares. A private limited company called Ramgopal Ganapatrai and Sons Ltd. Hereinafter reffrred to as R. G. and Sons, Ltd. Was the managing agent of the mills. The selling agency of the mills was with Ramriskhdas Balkison and Sons, Ltd. (hereinafter reffrred to as R. B. & Sons Ltd.) In both these companies (R. G. and Sons Ltd. And R. B. and Sons Ltd.) the accused No. 3 and the members of his family held major number of shares. The managing director of both these private limited companies was the accused No. 3. Accused No. 1 was the manager and the accused No. 2 the secretary of the mills and also of these two companies viz., B.G. & Sons Ltd., and R. B. & Sons Ltd. Madhuvachan B. Bhat was the cashier of the mills. Chotalal H. Oza was the accountant and cashier of R. B. & Sons, Ltd. OF the R. G. and Sons, Ltd., Chunilal M. Oza was the accountant and the cashier. On 12-1-1946, the Ordinances No. II and III of 1946 were published in the Gazzette of India Extraordinary. The former was issued in order to require Banks and Government Treasuries of furnish information concerning bank notes of certain denominational values held by them. The latter was issued in order to provide for the demonetisation of certain high denomination notes. On 16-1- 1946, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 went to the Bank of India, Ltd., with the declaration, which was made by both of them on behalf of the mills in pursuance of S. 6 of Ordinance III of 1946, and 276 currency notes of Rs. 1000 Harprasad Ghashiram Gupta and Anr. vs. State (22.06.1951 - BOMHC) Page 3 of 20 each and the list of the said notes. The declaration was signed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the mills and presented to the Bank of India, Ltd. The accused were prosecuted under S. 7 of the High Denomination Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance No. III of 1946, on the allegation that the declaration, dated 15-1- 1946, which was made on behalf of the Mills, by accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the instigation of the accused No. 3 was false to the knowledge of the three accused, in that the sums of Rs. 1,57000, Rs. 85,000 and Rs. 34,000 mentioned in c. 16 of the declaration did not belong to the mills, and were not in possession of the mills, on 11-1-1946, but belonged to the accused No. 3 and were in the personal safe of the accused No. 3 and went directly from the said safe to the Bank of India Ltd. On 16-1-1946. It was alleged that in ordr to defeat the provisions of Ordinance No. III falsification of the books of account of R.G. & Sons, Ltd., R.B. and Sons, Ltd., and the mills, was made on 14-1-1946, by the making of certain false entries therein as of 11-1-1946. The charge against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 was that they knowingly made a false declaration in respect of Rs. 2,76,000, in currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 7 of Ordinance III of 1946, and that the accused No. 3 abetted the commission of the offence by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced to one days simple imprisonment and fines of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 2000 respectively. The accused No. 3 was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came in appeal to the High Court. Yyas, J. After setting out facts above summarized and dealing with points which are not material to the report His Lordship proceeded.] The second argument which Mr. Amin has pressed into service for contending that the sanction is invalid is that it is not a sanction given by the Central Government at all. For the purpose of supporting this argument a comparison is drawn by him between clause (23), Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943, and Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of Ordinance III of 1946. Clause (23), Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1913, provided as under : "No prosecution for contravention of any of the pro-visions of this order shall be instituted without the previous sanction of the Provincial Government or any such officer of the Provincial Government not below the rank of District Magistrate as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order in writing, authorise in this behalf." Sub section (3) of Section 7 of Ordinance III of 1946 did not contemplate any delegation and did not provide for it. Now, turning to the sanction in this case, it is submitted by Mr. Amin that it is not a sanction granted by the Central Government at all, but is an order passed by Mr. K. A. Master in his individual capacity. The sanction bears the signature of Mr. K. A. Master, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India and the Deputy Controller of Capital Issues. Mr. Master did not sign it for and on behalf of the Central Government. From this an argument is made by Mr. Amin that this cannot be deemed to be a sanction given by the Central Government. Harprasad Ghashiram Gupta and Anr. vs. State (22.06.1951 - BOMHC) Page 4 of 20

(2.) Our attention is invited by Mr. Amin to Ex. 7-32, which is a Notification, dated 19-3-1947, of the Legislative Department of the Government of India (Reforms). It provided that the orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor-General could be authenticated by the signature of a Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, or Assistant Secretary to the Government of India, and, is the case of orders in the Ministry of Finance, the authentication could be done by the Finance Secretary the Controller of Capital Issues, the Deputy Controller of Capital Issues, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, or Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Finance (Communication Division). This Notification Ex. Z 32, was signed by Mountbatten of Burma, Governor General of India, Now, for the meaning of the word "authenticate" Mr. Amin has drawn our attention to the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary", Vol. I, according to which the term "authenticate" moans to invest with authority, to establish the validity of. Oar attention is also invited to "A New English Dictionary", edited by Sir James Murray, Ltd., vol. I, at page 570, according to which the expression "authenticate" means to render authoritative or to invest with authority, to give legal validity to or to render valid to establish a claim of anything to a particular character or authorship; to establish the genuineness of; to certify the authorship of, to establish the title to credibility and acceptance. From all this a submission is advanced by Mr. Amin that if Mr. E.A. Master had signed the sanction for and on behalf of the Governor General or, the Central Government, then only the sanction would be invested with authority which it would have if it were given by the Central Government. The words "for and on behalf of the Governor-General or the Central Government" would have rendered the sanction authoritative, would have given legal validity to it and would have clothed it with the character of an order made by the Central Government. Those words would have certified that the authorship of the sanction was really of the Central Government. In these circumstances, it is contended by Mr. Amin that the absence of words "for and on behalf of the Governor General or the Central Government" in the sanction, which was signed by Mr. K. A. Master in his individual capacity, must invalidate the sanction. In short, the submission for the defence in respect of the sanction is that there wag no proper authentication of it in so far as Mr. Master did not sign it for and on behalf of the Governor-General or the Central Government. In other words, the argument is that the sanction was not expressed to have been given in the name of the Governor-General.

(3.) We have given anxious consideration to this argument of Mr. Amin, but have felt constrained to reject it as an argument with no substance in it. It is to be remembered that the Central Government, which is the expression used in Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of Ordinance III of 1916, has no individual personality of its own. It acts, and can only act, through its officers and its functions, duties and responsibilities can only be done and discharged, and are done and discharged, through its officers. It is, therefore, necessary to see which officer it was to whom the duty of issuing such sanction was allocated by the Central Government. In this connection Mr. Boovariwata for the State o [ Bombay has drawn or attention to the Distribution of Work Order, Bt. Z-31, dated 6-1-1948. This is how Ex. Z-31 reads : Harprasad Ghashiram Gupta and Anr. vs. State (22.06.1951 - BOMHC) Page 5 of 20