EMPEROR Vs. JEHANGIR ARDESHIR CAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused, Jehangir Ardeshir Rustomji Cama, a Deputy Collector under suspension, was convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate, Mr. Willis, under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code on three charges in this case and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default two months further simple imprisonment on each of the first two charges, and six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default further three months simple imprisonment on the third charge, the sentences to run consecutively. In appeal he was acquitted in respect of the third charge, and the convictions and sentences on the first two charges were maintained. He has applied in revision to this Court against his convictions and sentences. Government have also applied to enhance the sentences. The result is that under Section 439(6) of the Criminal P. C. the accused, as he was entitled, has exercised his right to show cause against his convictions. Confining myself to the first case and the two charges which are known as the Harangam and Sadarvel cases, Mr. Thakor for Cama has taken us exhaustively through the record, pointed out to us the discrepancies and the improbabilities, and has also minutely argued each point of law. Mr. Velinker for the Crown has confined himself to the broad aspects of the case and relied in the main on the judgments of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court.

(2.) Before entering into the points of law taken, it will be convenient shortly to state the history of the case. Mr. Macmillan, the District Magistrate of Surat, under whom the accused was working as Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Southern Division, communicated with the Criminal Investigation Department. The Deputy Inspector General placed Mr. Kothavalla, on January 21, 1925, at the disposal of Mr. Macmillan to make a confidential enquiry and submit a report. He made his inquiries from March to May and recorded the statements of certain witnessess. Their statements were also recorded at his request in March by Mr. Dullabhbhai, a Mamlatdar and Magistrate of the Bulsar Taluka. Subsequently, in August 1925, Government, under Section 197 of the Criminal P. C., issued the necessary sanctions. Mr. Kothavalla then lodged formal complaints before Mr. Jayakar, Acting District Magistrate, Mr. Jayakar ordered Mr. Kothavalla, under Section 155(2) of the Criminal P. C., to hold an investigation. Mr. Kothavalla thereupon recorded again these statements and some others and again sent up certain witnesses to Mr. Narandas Mehta, who had succeeded Mr. Dullabhbhai, for recording their statements. The accused had been suspended in July. His trial commenced in December 1925 and ended in April 1926. He appealed, and was released on the same day on bail by the Court of Session. His appeals were decided in October 1926 with the result stated above. With this preliminary history I proceed at once to consider in their order the various points of law raised.

(3.) The first point has reference to the order of Government, Ex. 28 (L), under Section 14, Criminal Procedure Code, appointing Mr. Willis to try "the case." It was argued that this authority to try "the case" does not make Mr. Willis competent to try three charges. It may be conceded perhaps that it would have been preferable if the order had explicitly run, "the case or cases." At the same time a case is not necessarily a single charge. It comprises all charges or classes of charges. In construing this order as in construing any other document, a reasonable construction must be placed, and the question asked, what was the intention of the person responsible for the order, how far that intention clearly appears, and whether there is any real ambiguity such as to mislead or prejudice any of the parties concerned. Section 14 expressly authorises the Magistrate to try cases or class of cases. In this view, so far as the present case of two charges is concerned, I see no difficulty. This was the first case Mr. Willis tried, and he had ample authority to include in it the three charges, which were legally comprised within that case. The fact that Government appointed no other Magistrate and appointed Mr. Willis "to try the case relating to the prosecution of Mr. J.A.R. Cama" shows that Government intended that Mr. Willis should try the present charges, and expressed themselves to that effect. The contention therefore fails.