KEDAR NATH SEN Vs. AMULYA RATAN SANYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, as also upon the complainant opposite party to show cause why the proceedings under Section 200, Penal Code, against the present petitioner pending in the Court of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, should not be quashed on the ground that on the prosecution story itself, the offence alleged having been committed in relation to a proceeding in a Court, a formal complaint in writing of such Court was necessary, as contemplated under Secs.195 and 476, Criminal P.C.

(2.) The complainant in this case is one "Amulya Ratan Sanyal" as assistant in the employ of and on behalf of the Co-operative Hindusthan Bank Ltd. (in liquidation). The ease of the complainant is that the petitioner, who is a debtor of the Co-operative Hindusthan Bank Ltd., and who was adjudged insolvent by an order made by this High Court on 13 June 1939, submitted, in or about the mon August, a scheme of composition to the Official Assignee for acceptance of his creditors, and a meeting of the creditors was convened by the Official Assignee on 10 September 1940 to consider the said scheme; that the petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently procured from one H.C. Mallik an affidavit on behalf of an alleged creditor of his, his brother Satish Chandra Sen, for the purpose of proving that his said brother was a creditor in the insolvency for a sum of Rs. 4000 and "caused it to be filed before the Official Assignee who was bound by law to receive the same as evidence in support of the claim of the said creditor to rank as a creditor of the accused in his insolvency"; that the said affidavit in so far as it stated that the claim was still outstanding was false inasmuch as the same had been given up on 23 February 1940 in Suit No. 1624 of 1938 on the original side of this High Court; that on 10 September 1940, on the date of the aforesaid meeting of the creditors, the petitioner with full knowledge of the falsity of the statements contained in the said affidavit used and/or attempted to use the said affidavit before the Official Assignee in order to include the said creditor as one of those who were supporting him in the scheme of composition submitted by him.

(3.) On these allegations the complainant prayed for a process against the petitioner for having committed an offence under Section 200 read with Section 199, Indian Penal Code. On this complaint the learned Magistrate started a proceeding requiring the petitioner's attendance on 10 February 1941 to answer to a charge of using as true such declaration knowing it to be false brought against him by Amulya Ratan Sanyal under Section 200, Indian Penal Code, and ultimately on 13 June 1941 framed charges against him in the following terms: 1. That you, Kedar Nath Sen, on or about 10 September 1940 at Calcutta, corruptly used or attempted to use as true, in support of your scheme of composition filed before the Official Assignee, Calcutta, a declaration (Ex. 4) made by one Hiran Chandra Mullick to the effect that you, Kedar Nath Sen were still truly and justly indebted to Satish Chandra Sen in the sum of Rs. 4000 and for which sum or any part thereof the said Satish Chandra Sen have had or received no manner of satisfaction, and you knew the said declaration to be false in a material particular, to wit, on the particular of your alleged indebtedness to Satish Chandra Sen and you further knew that your indebtedness to the said Satish Chandra Sen had ceased to exist as per terms of settlement and decree (Exs. 8 and 9) and which declaration was receivable as evidence as "proof of debt" under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 200, Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this Court.