AKHIL BANDHU RAY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case comes before us on reference by the learned Sessions-Judge of Jalpaiguri, and also on a rule, issued by this Court in revision. The material facts are shortly as follows: On 6 June 1936 a shareholder of the Kohinoor Tea Co. of Jalpaiguri sent a complaint against the directors of the Company to the Deputy Inspector General, C. I. D. at Calcutta. The police investigated his allegations, and reported that nine persons including the directors of the Kohinoor Tea Company, the Bengal Dooars Tea Company, the Arya Bank and the Nor. them Tea Company were members of a criminal conspiracy during the years 1930.35 to commit cheating and criminal breach of trust, and that in pursuance of this conspiracy they actually committed various such offences. The report goes on to enumerate specific offences under these sections in respect of money, committed during those years, and also one ease of offences under Secs.380, 409 and 411,I.P.C., in respect of green tea, for which purpose forgery and falsification of accounts were also committed. The police accordingly submitted charge sheet against these nine persons and the Local Government sanctioned their prosecution under Section 196-A (2) Criminal P. C, in respect of an offence under Section 120- B, I.P.C. read with Secs.380, 411, 409, 420, 468, 109, 477-A, I.P.C. and Section 282, Companies Act. It may be mentioned here that the police report, after asserting in its first paragraph the existence of a conspiracy, does not go on to mention any facts which would indicate that all the alleged offences were committed in pursuance of one conspiracy and one only. The Public Prosecutor opened the case on 8 February 1937, and in his opening address, so the Magistrate says, "hinted at the formation of groups of accused, but made no attempt at the grouping of evidence".

(2.) A month later, while the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses was proceeding all the accused filed petitions objecting to their joint trial. On these petitions the Magistrate passed the following order: The legality of a joint trial depends on the allegation made and not on the result of the trial as held in many reported oases including the Electricity Theft Case. Until I have come to the stage of framing charges, I cannot finally decide anything. The point will be discussed in the judgment if a charge of conspiracy is framed.

(3.) By 10 April the evidence of 55 prosecution witnesses had been recorded, and the Magistrate adjourned the case. On 12 April the following order was passed: Public Prosecutor not ready. I have gone through the evidence and find that in order to avoid probable prejudice to the accused persons by a misjoinder of charges it is desirable that the case should be split up into separate ones against, groups of accused and separate trials held. The learned Public Prosecutor is accordingly requested to come prepared on 19 April 1937 with draft charges against each group of accused in the light of the above order.