LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

STATE OF GUJARAT versus ACHARYA SHRI DEVENDRA PRASAD JI

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 26-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

!!'TATE OF GUJARAT 
V. 
ACHARYA SHRI DEVENDRAPRASADJI 
July 26, I 968 
A 
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACJIAWAT ANO A. N. G1t0\T.R, JJ.] 
B 
Bo111hay Public Trusts Act (Bo11z. 29 of 1950), ss. 37. 67 and 69-
''Sratcrnen(' and "repnrt"-i\.feaning of. 
Section 67 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 1950 provides that the 
contr;1v·:nrion of an order or direction made under the Act hy the Charity 
Commissioner is an offence. 
Section 69 relates to the duties. functions 
and powers of the Charity Commissioner. 
Under s. 69(H), the Charity 
C 
Commissioner can. under s. 37, call for a "statcm·;:nt" or "report" from 
a tru.'\tec of a public t1ust. 
The rc<>pondcnt \vas one of the 
rrush~cs of a puhlic tnist. 
In respect 
-0f certain constructions made with the funds of the public trust, without 
the Charity Con1rnissioncr's permission, the Charity Comn1is<:.ioner \\'ro:c 
to the respondent asking him to furnish information rel!arding the pur-
pose of the cons1ructionc; and \vhcn th~y \\·ere st;irted. the amount spent 
and to be spent. the income expected. and details and particulars regarding 
the contract<;. 
For failure to comply \vi1h the notice. lhc respondent wa<; 
prosecuted. 
He v;as convicted bv the ~·lagistra1e under ss. 37 and 67 of 
the Act. 
Jn revision. he v;as acquitted by the High Court. In appeal to 
this Court, 
HELD : The items n1entioned by the Charily Commissioner only in-
volve calling of "information" on various matters and Jid not fall within 
the meaning of the words "report" or "statement" used in s, 37(l)(c), 
and the Charity Commissioner is not 
empowered 
to call 
for 
such 
"information". (463 CJ 
I;rom the context in which the v.·ord "report" has 
been 
used 
in 
s. 3 7 ( 1) ( c) the word can have reference only to a formal report which 
a trustee may be required to make under the provisions of the Act or the 
rule,, if any framed under s. 84( I )(b). Similarly, the word "Statement" 
has been employed in rr. 17. 22 and 23 
of the rules, 
and this worCJ, 
appearing ins. 37(1)(c) has to be C-Onstrucd with reference to them. 
So 
construed, it caMot be equated "'ith the word "information" which would 
have a much wider S\\'t..'Cp than the \vord "statement". The distinction 
bctwc.cn the "-·ords "statement" and "information" is recognised by the 
Legislature itself by the use of the "'ords "other information" in s. 56(N) 
(2)(h) of the Act and r. 18 of the Rules made thereunder, which take 
in the an.'nvering of all inquiries and giving 
:111 kinds of 
information. 
(462 E-G] 
CRIMISAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
150 of 1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and order, dated June 21, 1965 of 
the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 1963. 
H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants. 
I. M Nanavati, B. Datta and 0. C, Mathur, for the respon-
.dcnt. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
' . 
. . 
-
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
GUJARAT v. ACHARYA (Grover, J.) 
457 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate against the judg-
ment of the High Court of Gujarat setting aside an order of a 
Magistrate by which the respondent was convicted of an offence 
under s. 67 read with s. 37 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 
1950 (as adapted and applied to the State of Gujarat), herein-
after referred to as the Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300, 
in default of payment of which he was to suffer rigorous imprison-
ment for two months . 
The respondent is one of the trustees of a trust known as "Shri 
Swami Narayan Mandir" at Ahmedabad which is registered as a 
public trust in the office of the Charity Commissioner. The trust 
is managed under a scheme prepared by the High Court of 
Bombay. 
It appears that the Charity Commissioner learnt about 
certain constructions having been made by the respondent trustee 
without permission from him. On March 22, 1962 a letter (Ext. 
3) was addressed from his office to the respondent the material 
part of which may be reproduced : 
"An information is received of the Charity Commis-
sioner that opposite the temple near the New Narnarayan 
building the blocks are being constructed m which 
shops are constructed on the ground floor of that 
building. 
E 
1. For what purpose it is constructed ? 
F 
G 
H 
2. From when its construction work is started? 
3. What amount is spent till today in construction 
of the same? 
4. What amount is to be spent still? 
5. How much income will accrue from it ? 
6. By which No. and on what date the permission of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.