KRISHNA LAL DHAR ADMINISTRATOR TO THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MOHENDRA NATH DHAR Vs. PROFULLA KUMAR DHAR ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND HIS BROTHER PROBODH KUMAR DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this case is, whether the Criminal Court can take cognizance of an alleged offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against an Administrator appointed under the Probate Act, without the sanction of the Civil Court, when such Administrator he submitted his accounts to the Court,

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was appointed Administrator to the estate of his deceased brother by the High Court in its original jurisdiction on the 30th August 1905, the administration being limited until either of the two minor sons of the deceased, on attaining majority, would apply for a grant of Letters of Administration to himself, The elder minor attained his majority in 1913 and upon his application the High Court in its testamentary and antedate jurisdiction, ordered the petitioner to file an inventory and account of the estate and effects of the deceased. Subsequently, on his failure to comply the petitioner was arrested by an order of the High Court in September 1917 and he filed the accounts of the estate and effects of the deceased and an inventory of the properties of the deceased which came into his hands, and it is alleged that he was thereupon discharged. On the 19th January 1920, Prafulla kumar (the younger brother) lodged a complaint against the-petitioner under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that the accounts filed by the petitioner in the High Court contained false items and numerous fraudulent entries out of which three were selected by the complainant. On the 25th March 20 the complainant made a further petition alleging that, on further enquiry, he had found out other instances of criminal breach of trust by the petitioner as Administrator. 2. The petitioner submitted a petition to the Magistrate praying that the proceedings might be quashed on the ground inter alia that he having rendered accounts to the High Court, the proper Court for making an enquiry as to th3 falsity or otherwise of the same, which covered a period of about 14 year, was the High Court, and that the Criminal Court was incompetent to go into such accounts. The petition was, however, rejected by the Magistrate and the petitioner thereupon moved this Court and obtained this Rule.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution is based upon the inventory and accounts filed by the petitioner in the High Court and the items in respect of which he has been charged in the Criminal Court being included in the accounts and inventory filed, the Criminal Court cannot entertain the complaint, at any rate, without a carnation under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance is place upon the provisions of Section 98 of the Probate Act. That section provides for filing of inventory and account by an Executor or Administrator, and Sub-sections (3) and (4) of that section lay down: (3) If an Executor or Administrator on being required by the Court to exhibit an inventory or account under this section intentionally omits to empty with the requisition he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code. (4) The exhibition of an intentionally false inventory or account under this section shall be deemed to be an offense under Section 193 of that Code.