KUMUD NATH CHAUDHURI Vs. BROJENDRA NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this ease the facts are as follows: On 20 May 1932 the complainant Brojendra Nath Boy, who was a depositor in the Manikganj Loan Office to the extent of a single rupee, filed a petition against the Directors and the Secretary of the Manikganj Loan Office making allegations on twelve charges noted in the petition before the Sub-divisional Officer of Manikganj. The Subdivisional Officer was pleased to direct a thorough investigation by the police and, under his orders, the case was examined by a Police Officer under the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Dacca. The police seized all the books of the Manikganj Loan Office, removed them to the police station and prepared a synopsis of evidence bearing on the said twelve charges which they submitted through the Superintendent of Police to the Public Prosecutor of Dacca for his considered opinion.

(2.) The Public Prosecutor gave his opinion after going through the materials and the books of the company which were produced before him, but his opinion was not favourable to the complainant. Thereupon the complainant filed a petition of objection or, as it is called in vernacular, a naraji petition. This was before the Public Prosecutor's opinion was made available to the complainant, and the naraji petition was put in anticipation of the Public Prosecutor's opinion not being in favour of the complainant. Be that as it may, the Superintendent of Police on getting the Public Prosecutor's opinion studied the case against the accused for himself and then referred the matter to the Senior Government Pleader of Dacca for opinion. The Senior Government Pleader of Dacca examined the whole matter and finally came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the case of the complainant. There were as many as twelve charges. The first charge was that the Directors and the Secretary took an illegal gratification of Rs. 12,000 from the Sunny Valley Tea Estate in connexion with a loan given to the said tea company by the Manikganj Loan Office. This matter was examined and the second officer, who held an inquiry under the orders of the Subdivisional Officer, found that there was no foundation for the charge. The second charge was the low rate of interest charged for the loan to the Sunny Valley Tea Estate. This charge was examined by the second officer and he came to the conclusion that there was no criminality whatsoever in the matter and that the directors were in a position to give a satisfactory explanation. The third charge was that the Manikganj Loan Office purchased 150 shares of Kedarpur Tea Estate at a premium of Rs. 20 per share. The second officer was of opinion on an investigation of the charge that the purchase in question was an investment which the directors thought was for the benefit of the Loan Office and that there was no substance whatsoever in the charge. The fourth charge was about certain loan to an institution called Lakhmi Bhandar. Here again (it is not necessary to go into details) the second officer was of opinion on an investigation that the Directors of Lakhmi Bhandar had no criminal intention whatsoever in the matter. The fifth charge was that the Manikgan Loan Office made a false balance sheet in the year 1923 inasmuch as the loss of Rs. 23,000 was not shown there. In this matter the charge was very carefully discussed by the Public Prosecutor and the Government Pleader with certified auditors who perused the balance sheets from 1914 to 1930 except that of 1926 which was not made available. The Government Pleader was of opinion that the charge of false balance sheet was wholly misconceived.

(3.) The second officer therefore came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the charge. The sixth charge was that the Kedarpur Tea Estate, in violation of the contract with the Comilla Banking Corporation Ltd., sold some tea already hypothecated to the Comilla Banking Corporation to some other parties direct. Here, on the facts, the second officer came to the conclusion that the allegation did not touch the Manikganj Loan Office at all and that the charge could not, in any view of the matter, be considered to have been substantiated. The seventh charge was that the Directors of the Manikganj Loan Office stopped payment to the depositors but the directors withdrew their deposits and took loan at low rates. The second officer examined the details of this charge and he came to the conclusion that there was no instance of low rate of interest being charged at all. He therefore held that there was no substance whatsoever in the charge. With reference to the eighth charge relating to certain transactions with various other companies-such as the Industrial Bank, the Bazar Union Bank and so on-the investigations before the police and before the second officer showed that the facts stated in support of the charge were not true.