MAHIPAL BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order passed on 7-12-82 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, rejecting the prayer of the accused-petitioners to discharge them under S.245(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the charge against them was groundless.

(2.) The opposite party 2, Shri Bijay Singh Nahar, was the president of the Bihar State Board of Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts and was authorised by the Government of Bihar to supervise all the Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts in Bihar. Late Maharaj Bahadur Singh, father of the petitioners was the Trustee/Manager of Sikherjee Group of Temples. After his death in 1957, the petitioners became the Trustees of Sammet Sikherjee Group of Temples by a resolution of the Bihar State Board dt.13-7-58. The audit report of Sammet Sikharjee Group of Temples for the year ending 31-3-75 showed that a sum of Rs.17,66,607.16 P. was kept as fixed deposits in some scheduled banks in the personal names of the petitioners and that an amount of Rs.1,83,661.99 P. was kept by the petitioners as cash in hand in their sadar office at Calcutta. After receipt of this audit report in August, 1975, the opposite party 2, Bijay Singh Nahar, wrote a letter on 15-9-75 to the petitioners, complaining to them about their keeping of the sum of Rs.17,66,607.16 P. in their personal names instead of depositing the amounts in the name of Sammet Sikharjee Group of Temples and asking them not to keep a huge amount of Rs.1,83,661.99 P. as cash in hand. By that letter the opposite party 2 requested the petitioners to deposit their cash in hand in Bank on keeping some working fund in their hands for meeting the day-to-day expenses. On 26-9-75 a reply was sent by the petitioners as Hony. Joint Managers of Jain Swetambar Society intimating that steps were being taken to keep the fixed deposits in the name of the Trust and that the cash in hand was indispensable for urgent and unforeseen expenses. On 10-10-75, the opposite party 2 wrote another letter to the petitioners requesting them to furnish the details of the bank accounts, particularly, the fixed deposit receipts. On 18-10-76, the petitioners sent the particulars of fixed deposits in different banks wherefrom it transpired that the sum of Rs.17,66,607.16 P. had been shown as deposits in 34 different accounts in 12 banks of Calcutta and Isri Bazar Branch, Giridih, in Bihar in the personal names of the petitioners. Suspecting foul play, the opposite party 2 sent a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Calcutta, for taking cognizance of an offence in respect of the sum of Rs.17,66,607.16 P. On the basis of that complaint, Section-K Case No.316 dt.4-7-78 was started. On 17-4-78, the opposite party 2 sent another complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, for taking cognizance of an offence in respect of the sum of Rs.1,83,661.99 P. Both these complaints were investigated together by the police who seized all the fixed deposit receipts during investigation and thereafter closed the investigation on the ground that the dispute was of civil nature. The audit report for the year ending 31-3-76 was received by the opposite party 2. That audit report showed that a fixed deposit amount of Rs.17,66,607.16 P. had increased to Rs.25,29,302.28 P. That audit report further showed that the petitioners retained those fixed deposit receipts in their personal names and some portion of the fixed deposit amounts had been kept in the name of the Jain Swetambar Society. The opposite party No.2 filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, on 6-9-80 on the allegation that the petitioners committed offence under S.120-B/406 IPC for retaining those amounts as fixed deposit receipts in their personal names and some of these fixed deposit receipts in the name of the Jain Swetambar Society as well as for keeping the sum of Rs.1.83,661.99 P. as cash in hand. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, took cognizance under section 406/120-B IPC. On the basis of this petition of complaint, process was issued against the petitioners. On 10-3-81 a petition was filed for discharging the petitioners under S.245(2) Cr.P.C. This petition was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, by the impugned order dt.7-1-82. It is the legality and propriety of this order dt.7-1-82 that is challenged in this revisional application. The accused-petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceeding in the court of the learned Magistrate against them.

(3.) Mr. Balai Ch. Ray, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the proceeding in the Case No.2396/80 in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, should be quashed as the petition of complaint, even if taken at its entirety, does not disclose any offence under S.120-B/406 I.P.C. It is contended that the complaint under S.120-B/406 IPC is barred by limitation. It is also contended that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.