STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAYANTILAL POPATLAL CHANDRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a common reference made to the Full Bench in relation to nine different matters pending before the learned single Judge of this Court.

(2.) THERE is some dispute as to whether all the thirteen raids were conducted on the same day on 8th May 1967 or twelve on 8th and one on 10th May 1967 at the instance of the Forward Markets Commission under the provisions of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (LXXIV of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This difference in the date of raids has no relevance at this stage. After completing investigation, nine different charge-sheets were filed. Two cases ended in the conviction of two of the accused in each of these cases and the other seven prosecutions resulted in acquittal. Against the convictions in those two prosecutions, Criminal Appeals Nos. 76 and 77 of 1974 were filed in the Sessions Court but they were dismissed. Hence the convicted accused have filed the above-referred two revision applications. Against the acquittal in the re-maining seven prosecutions the State has come in appeal to this Court.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that all the nine raids in the above cases were conducted without any authorisation and warrant from a Magistrate under Section 22-A of the Act. One of the questions raised before the learned single Judge in all these matters was whether the raids conducted under the normal provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, like Section 165, could be considered legal in view of the introduction of Sections 22-A and 22-B in the Act by the Amendment Act No. LXII of 1960. So far as this Court is concerned, the point is already covered by a reported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in M. R. Pillai v. M. Vrijbhukhandas as also by an unreported judgment of a Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 1963 and others decided on 6-4-1964 (Bom) State v. Chandulal Kantilal. In fact, the learned single Judge relied upon the earlier Division Bench judgment. The learned single Judge before whom these matters came up, however, doubted the correctness of these judgments, particularly because the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not discussed in either of these judgments. The learned single Judge observed that not only the legal character of the entry, search and seizure required to be considered but the conclusions and observations of the Division Bench in the above-mentioned unreported judgment regarding the raising of the presumption under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 22-B also required to be considered. However, the learned single Judge observed that he was not discussing that point at that stage and did not make a specific reference. This view of the learned single Judge found favour with the Division Bench which had expressly disagreed with a certain view of the Allahabad High Court in State of U. P. v. Chamber of Commerce 1970 All LJ 182. According to the reference order made by the Division Bench of this Court, the amended Act since 20th Dec. 1960 presents an exclusive method of investigation so far as effecting raids for the purpose of search and investigation at various places is concerned and the specific provision therein superseded the general provisions of the Code relevant for the purpose. It is in these circumstances that this reference has been made by the Division Bench without actually framing the point for our consideration, but making sufficiently clear observations indicating the point that requires to be decided.