APEEJAY PVT LTD Vs. RAGHAVACHARI NARASINGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law as regards the true effect of Art.20, sub-Art.(3) of the Constitution falls for consideration in this application. It is to be noted that one of the fundamental principles of British system of Criminal Jurisprudence is that there is total prohibition as regards the compulsion of self incrimination. Indian law also provides immunity on the basis of such compelled evidence. The Supreme Court decision in the case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, reported in AIR 1954 SC 300 lends assistance to the views expressed above. The subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushalbhan, reported in AIR 1960 SC 806 lays down that even in the case of a departmental enquiry where a criminal proceedings is pending, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial Court so that the defence of the employer in the criminal case may not in any way be prejudiced.

(2.) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. v. The Workmen, reported in AIR 1965 SC 155 observed that it is desirable if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against workman in a domestic enquiry to be tried in a criminal Court, the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. The Supreme Court, however, observed that it would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course where a charge against a workman is of a grave character, because in such a case it would be unfair to compel workmen to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal Court.

(3.) At this juncture, however, a brief recapitulation on the factual aspect would be convenient. On 3rd August, 1988 Police personnel from the Detective Department, Fraud Section, of the Calcutta Police conducted a search and seizure at the residence of the petitioners as well as at their place of business pursuant to complaint lodged by M/s. Apeejay Private Limited under S.409/34 of the Penal Code. The petition of complaint proceeded on to record that the petitioner No. 1 herein is a stock and share broker. Between April 1984 and April 1985, the complainant-Company through its associated companies, viz. Apeejay Medical Research and Welfare Association and Apeejay Educational Association issued 12 several Account Payee cheques and entrusted with the petitioners herein a sum of Rupees One Crore Ninety eight lakhs with instructions to purchase various shares on behalf of Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. The complaint further records that the complainant company was made to understand by the petitioners herein that they had purchased different shares for the complainant company as per direction valued at Rs. 1,97,48,354/-. Out of the shares purchased, 16500 equity shares of Metal Box India Ltd. was sold by the petitioners herein as per instruction of the complainant company and the sale proceeds of Rs. 3,63,000/- was deposited with the complainant company by two different cheques on 18th June, 1985 and 10th September, 1985. Similar instructions were also sent to the petitioners by the complainant company as regards the shares of Good Year India Ltd. and the sale proceeds to the extent of Rs. 20,57,627/- were deposited with the complainant company, but the balance amount as against the total sale price of Rs. 34,51,232/-, viz. Rs. 13,93,605/- were not paid by the petitioners till the date of filing of the complaint. The complaint further records that the sale price of the shares of Bata India Ltd. amounting to Rs. 50,000,00/- has also not been deposited or paid by the petitioners to the complainant company. As regards the equity share of EID Parry Ltd. and Mahinder and Mahinder a separate complaint was filed which is discussed hereafter.