NARAYANDAS KEDARNATH DAGA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HIS Lordship after stating the facts proceeded. As a result of the investigation made by the Special Police, two charge -sheets were filed, one with regard to the case which resulted in the first commitment and another which resulted in the second commitment.

(2.) IN order that these accused, should be tried, expeditiously, the State Government made a special appointment of Mr. Mahimtura as a Special Judicial Magistrate for Bombay and Nagpur District and invested him with the powers of a Presidency Magistrate. This notification was issued on May, 27 1960, and immediately thereafter the charge -sheet was filed. In due course another notification was issued on September 15, 1961, by which Mr. B.N. Deshmukh, Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, was appointed to be an Additional Sessions Judge for Nagpur Sessions Division to exercise jurisdiction in the Court of Sessions for the Nagpur Sessions Division and. by Clause (2) he was required to sit for the cases committed by Mr. Mahimtura at Bombay within the Greater Bombay Sessions Division.

(3.) MR . Khambatta contends -and in our view rightly -that even on the assumption that Article 14 can possibly mean as is contended for, it is impossible to say that those four witnesses are on an equal footing with the present accused. We have carefully perused their statements and those statements show that they were told that it was necessary for raising funds for the purpose of the Mills that the stock should be inflated. It may be that rightly or wrongly in order to benefit the Mills they carried lout the desire of accused Nos. 1 and 3. They were ordinary employees of the Mills and were serving the Mills for a long time and there is nothing to show that they knew that the funds were being misused by accused No. 1 for his own purpose. Moreover, except their own statements there is no evidence against them. Mr. Bhatt contended that as this aspect of the matter was not mooted before the learned Magistrate, the other evidence against them was not brought to his notice. He says he would be in a position to show that there was evidence against these witnesses apart from their statements which would show their complicity. It is obvious that though the accused may have given statements before the police, these statements would not be admissible in evidence against themselves. The other evidence, even if any, could be only very meagre and unsubstantial.