LexD. N. BHATIACHARJEE & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·~· A B c D E F 973 D. N. BHATIACHARJEE & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. March 22, 1972 [A. N. GROVER AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 203-Power of Magis· trate to dismiss complaint. An order of dismissal of complaint under s. 203 Cr. P.C .. has to be made on judicially sound grounds. It can only be made where the reasons· given disclose .that the proceedings cannot terminate \luccessfully in a convicton. A Magistrate is not debarred, at this stage, from goi'lg into .the merits df the ev;denee produced by the complainant, but the object of such consideration could only be to determi 1e whether 1here are sufficient grnund!i for proceeding furtoor. The mere existence of some grounds which would be material in deciding whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted does not generally indicate that the case must necessary fail. On the other hand, such grounds indicate the need for proceeding further in order to discover the truth after a full and 'proper investigation. If, however, a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in supjll)rt of it show that the essential ingred'ents of the offences alleged are ab6ent or that too dispute is only of a c·vil nature or that there are such patent absurdit es in the evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proettd further, the complaint _could be properly dismissed under the section. [9'76 E-Hl Where, therefore, the Magistrate dismi~es a complaint on a misread .. ing df the oral evidence and 'he evidence, in fact, does not reveal a'ly absurdity so as to merit a forthright dism:&sal of too complaint under the section, such an order is fit to be set aside by the High Cotirt. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1969. Appeal b!y·. special leave from the judgment and order dated April 15, 1969 of the Calcutta High Coutt in Criminal Revision No. 1114 .of 1963. C. K. Daphtary and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants. G I>. K. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, tor respondent No. I. H P. K. Mukherjee, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BeJl, J. On 1f .. 7 -1963 Sunilakshva Choudhry a :Oirector of the Metropolitan Indu1trial Corporation Ltd., C·Icut a, havi"g been authorised by its Boa•d of Directors, filed ·a complaint agaiqst the app~llant Deb~ndra Na•h Bhattacharjee (or Bhattacharya), a former Director, and Banamali Pathak, Cashier ·of the Bengal 16-L106ISupcin2 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972) 3 S.C.R. Luxrni Cotton Mills Ltd., and Hiran Roy, Chief Accountant of the Bengal Luxmi Cotion Mills Ltd., alleging offence punishable under Sec.ions 406/409/467/471/477A/109 JndiJn Penal CJde. The c:mplainant alleged that, when the Life Insurance business was natioiialbeJ in 1956 the Metrvp !Lan Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereina,ter referred to as 'the Oimpany') received a sum of about Rs. 10,25,523/· as compensation, a.nd the Company was trans- formed in.-.:i Metropohtan Industrial Corporaiion (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The bu;iness of the Corporation wa; s"id to be c:mfined to making of loans, and dea ings in s~ocks and shares. The complainant was Director of the Company in 1957 and the accused app:llant D. N. Bhattasharjee was albged to be its Managim Di ·ec or with abs'.llu\e control over the funds of the Company and the only person au'horised to operate the t11anking account of the Company with the Metropolitan Bank Ltd. Jlound- abbut October, 1958, alth. ui;h. th: appellant Bhattach1rj 'e was said to have ceased to be the Managing Di-ector, yet, he is alleged to have continued to ex~rcise the powers he had possessed a; M 1n1ging Director. Af•er the Company became the Corp ·ration certain activities of the appellant D N. Bhattacha•jee a·e al'eged to hwe come to light and ccmpelbd his resignation on 28-2-1963 so that he hande1 over s0me of the B01ks and reco•ds of the Corporation to the complainant. The c'>mnlainant, after having examined the records hmded over by D. N. Bhattacharjee, claimed to have found m 1n'bly pay shee•s containing mimes of certain em~Joyees who were not emnloyees d the Corporatio.n at ~n and who we·e smp·c·ed to be fictitiouc as they could not be trased. The comphinant alle~ed that, ..,n furthe• enquiry, he 'qurid that the Corporation had not employed anybbdy at all but h 0 d taken occa- sional holp from cer·a•n empJ·yees of sister concerns which hqd th•
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.