LexLEGAL REMEMBRANCER OF GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL versus HARIDAS MUNDRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. :. I 933 LEGAL REMEMBRANCER OF GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL ll · H;ARIDAS MUNDRA December 9, 1975 [P. N. BHAGWATI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898-S'ec. 195(1) (c)-Scope of. The respondent, a director of a company was charged with offences under ss. 418 and 471 read with ss. 468 and 477A, I.P.C. on the ground that he defraud•ed the company. At the trial, a single Judge of the High Court dis- charged the respondent on the view that he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial by reason of s. 195(1) (c) of the Cr. P.C., 1898. The full Bench of the High Court affirmed the view of' the single Judge. C: Allowing the appeals to this Court, HELD : The High Court was entitled to proceed with the trial of the res- pondent in respect of offences under s. 471 without any complaint in writing from the company Judge whom the proceeding was pending. [938A] (1) Section 195(1 )(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence described in s. 463 or p1mishable D under ss. 471, 475 and 476, Indian Penal Code where such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any' court in respect of any document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such court or of some other court to which such court is subordinate. The Hi!l'h Court had clearly and indubitably jurisdiction to proceed with the trial against the respondent in respect of offences under ss. 418 and 477 A. On its plain langua~ the inhibition in s. 195 (1) (c) applies only where a person is being tried for an offence under s. 463 or punish.able under ss. 471, 475 or 476. Offences under 418 and s. 477A are plainly not E. covered by s. 195(1)(c) Cr. P.C. [936-D-G] (2) In regard to offences under s. 471, I.P.C. it could not be said that the respondent could invoke the applicability of s. 195(1)(c). The offence under s. 471 was committed by the respondent long before the proceeding in the Com- pany matter commenced and he became a party to that proceeding, and it was not committed by him in his capacity as such party, i.e. after having become a party to the proceeding. In Pc•tel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat F this Court restricted the scope and ambit of s. 195 (l)(c) to cases where the offence was alleged to have been committed by a party to a proceeding after he became such party and not before. [936H, 937 A-DJ Raghunath v. State oj U.P., AIR 1973 S.C. 1100 and Mohan Lal v. The t State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 S.C. 299, referl'.ed to. In the instant case since the offence charged against the respondent was one alleged to have been commi.tted by him before he became a party to the pro- G. ceeding in the company matter, s. 195(1)(c) had no application. Secondly, the forged bills had not been produced in evidence before the Company Judge in the ,proceeding before him. The requirement of s. 195(1) (c) that the docu- ment in question should be produced or given in evidence in the proceeding was, therefom, clearly not satisfied and on this ground also s. 195(1)(c) was not attracted in the present case. [937G, 938A] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1971. H. From the judgment and order dated .16th June 1970 of the Cal- cutta High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 650 of 1967 and A 934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1976] 2 S.C.R. Criminal Appeals Nos. 256 and 257 of 1971 Appeals by special leave from the judgme.,1ts and order dated the 27-4-67 and 28-1-71 of the Calcutta High Court in Cases Nos. 2-4/67 and 2/67 Second Crim'nal Sessions 1967 respectively. D. Mookherjee and M. N. Shroff for the appellants (in all the (.. B appeals). c D E F H V. S. De,sai, A. G. Menseses, J. B. Dadchanji & Co. for respon- dents in Crl. 256-57 /71. The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by BHAGW A TI, J. These three appeals arise out of the same facts and it would, therefore, be convenient to dispose of them by a com- mon judgment. The respondent in all the three appeals is one Hari- das Mundra. He was at all material times the managing director of S. B. Industrial Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., who were the manag- ing agents of a company called Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. He and his brother Tulsidas Mundra were also directors of Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. The Life lnsnrance Corporation of India, which was the largest shareholder,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.