290 of 1969.
The companyplainant addressed a letter dated August 19, 1967, to accused No.
This companymodity was for the purpose of being used in the licensees factory.
Accused No.
23/W/67.
In the judicial enquiry held by the latter, the companyplainant had brought on record various documents to substantiate his allegations.
The 4th accused was introduced by the other accused as a Customs Clearing Agent and on their suggestion, the, companyplainant appointed him as his clearing agent.
The first accused wrote a letter dated July 25, 1967, informing the companyplainant that the goods had already been shipped and that they would be arriving very shortly.
2283 of 1967 Accused No.
The second companytention of the accused related to the effect of ,the order of withdrawal of the earlier companyplaint on the present proceedings.
In the said application, however, only Shanti Bose the present accused No.
2283 of 1967 praying for a declaration that the plaintiff was the pledge of 316 bags of milk powder of the defendant and prayed for a decree in the sum of Rs.
The companyplainant appointed M s. Arun Importer P Ltd., owned, managed and companytrolled by accused Nos.
The companyplainant rushed to Calcutta and companytacted the accused but was number able to get any information.
The witnesses examined so far by the prosecution had also been cross examined, by the defence.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 10, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision Nos.
On this basis, the representation made on behalf of the companyplainant was rejected.
The milk powder seized by the police was later on directed to be returned to the companyplainant by the High Court on his furnishing security.
60,000/ .
On behalf of the appellant, Mr. D. Mookerjee very strenuously attacked the reasoning of the High Court for quashing the charges framed against the accused and the entire proceedings that head taken place before the Presidency Magistrate.
None of the accused persons moved the High Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process or against the order dated 7 9 1968 framing charges against them.
After clearing the shipping documents with the assistance of the loan provided by the accused, the companyplainant, however, was number informed about the actual arrival of the ship.
immediately after the charges were framed.
289 of 1969, followed by accused Nos.
The fifth companytention, as the High Court itself observes, related to the merits, namely, that the evidence on record does number establish the offences with which the accused are charged.
On an ascertainment of these facts, the companyplainant withdrew his original companyplaint with the permission of the companyrt and instituted the present companyplaint against all the accused.
The records disclose that it was the fourth accused, who moved the High Court to quash the proceeding on March 17, 1969, earlier than the other accused.
1 to 3, as his agents to import 52.5 bags of milk powder from New Zealand.
If the case of the accused was that the allegations in the companyplaint do number companystitute the offence companyplained of or that the companyplaint has to be quashed for any ground available in law.
While matters stood thus, the 4th accused moved the High Court in Criminal Revision No.
1 to 3.
238, 289 and 290 of 1969.
The companyplainant, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, came to know that all the accused persons had taken away on August 19, 1967, the entire quantity of 525 bags of milk powder, which had been imported on his account without his knowledge, companysent or instructions and that they had also mis appropriated about 200 bags before the police companyld raid their premises.
2 filed a similar Revision No.
oral and documentary, was adduced by the companyplainant in the presence of the accused.
On a companysideration of such materials, the Presidency Magistrate framed charges against all the four accused as early as September 7, 1968.
The companyplaint was filed on August 26, 1967, whereas the suit against the companyplainant was filed on September 26, 1967.
1 to 3 also offered to assist the companyplainant with a loan of Rs.
25,000/ to enable him to clear the shipping documents from the Bank.
Before the Magistrate, the evidence.
4 might have diverted the goods to other persons.
It is on the basis of the acceptance of these companytentions that the entire proceedings have been quashed.
Nor had they approached the High Court when charges were framed against them.
As a result of the enquiry, the Chief Presidency Magistrate on December 26, 1967, summoned all the four accused persons under sections 120B/409 and 409 an transferred the case for disposal to the 7th Presidency Magistrate, The learned Magistrate, after a companysideration of the materials placed before him by the companyplainant, framed on September 7, 1968 charges against all the accused under sections 120B/409 IPC and a charge under section 409 IPC against accused Nos.
4 flatly declined to even recognise the companyplainant or talk to him accused Nos.
1 to The allegations in the companyplaint were briefly as follows The companyplainant was a partner of M s. Kalinga Bakery Bis cuit Confectionery and Mineral Water Company of Rourkela in Orissa and was granted actual users import licence on November 18, 1966, by the Joint Chief Controller of imports and Exports, Calcutta, for import of skimmed milk powder and other companymodities upto the value of Rs.
These two companytentions have found favour with the High Court.
The fourth companytention of the accused was that both the first and the second companyplaints suppressed material facts, vitiating the present proceedings.
On August 26, 1967, an application was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate to direct the police to make an investigation under section 156 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code re garding the missing quantity of milk powder.
Even by that date, several prosecution witnesses, had been examined and they had also been cross examined by the accused.
4 was cited as an accused, as the companyplainant did number have any reason to suspect the other accused.
On receipt of the companyplaints the Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered a judicial enquiry to be held by the 9th Presidency Magistrate.
All the three Criminal Revisions were, heard together by the High Court and have been dealt with in its companymon judgment.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
26,744.87.
Accused Nos.
None of the accused gave any intimation about the arrival of the goods.
On the other hand, Mr. A. N. Mulla, learned companynsel on behalf of the accused, urged that the High Court was justified, in the circumstances, in quashing the charges well as the entire proceedings so far taken place before the Presidency Magistrate.
101 to 103 of 1970.
1 and 3, who were the, petitioners in Criminal Revision No.
1 to 3, however, professed ignorance about the whole thing and hinted that accused No.
They also asked for various interim reliefs.
What remained was only to examine two more witnesses on the side of the prosecution, as per order dated 24 21969, and also to examine one Durga Dutt Chowdhury as a companyrt witness under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, as per order dated 7 3 1969.
However, to his surprise, the companyplainant read in the newspaper a report on August 22, 1967, about the police having recovered from the various parts of Calcutta several bags of milk powder stated to have been imported on his account.
C. Mazumdar for the State in all the appeals .
These persons will be referred to as accused Nos.
A. No.
1 to 3, companying to know about this proceeding, instituted on September 25, 1967, a suit against the companyplainant in the High Court Suit No.
The fourth companytention of the accused was that the companyplainant had suppressed material facts, which were within his knowledge, in the first companyplaint filed on August 26, 1967.
There was also a prayer in the alternative for stay of the criminal proceedings till the disposal of Civil Suit No.
238 of 1969 for quashing the charges and the entire proceedings that had taken place before the Magistrate.
The accused had been summoned, after a judicial enquiry by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on December 26, 1967, under sections 120B/409 and 409 IPC.
102/70 .
The appellant in all these three appeals, Amar Chand Agar walla, filed a companyplaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on November 21, 1967, on the basis of which the four accused persons, namely, Paramanada Agarwalla, Madan Mohan Gour, Jhumermal Agarwala and Shanti Bose, were required to answer charges under section 120B/409 and 409 IPC.
A. Nos.
The High Court by the same judgment, quashed the proceedings based upon the said charges, which were pending before the Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta in case No.
Accused Nos.
101 103/70 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VAIDIYALIGAM, J. These three appeals by the companyplaint, by special leave, are against the companymon judgment and order dated August 10, 1969, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos.
they should have approached the High Court, at any rate.
The 7th Presidency Magistrate, after recording the evidence of ten prosecution witnesses, framed a charge on September 7, 1968, under section 120B/409 against all the four accused and a charge under section 409 IPC against accused Nos.
238, 289 and 290 of 1969, setting aside the charge under section 120B read with section 409 P.C. framed against all the four accused and the charge under section 409 IPC framed against accused Nos 1 to 3.
Mukherjee and S. Ghosh for the appellants in all the appeals .
1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
4 asking for information about the arrival of the goods.
N. Mulla, J. M. Khanna, Vishnu Bahadur Saharaya and Yogindra Khushalani for the respondents, in Cr.
A. Gupta for respondent in Cr.
The case was later on transferred to the Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcuttta, for disposal.
Several items of documentary evidence had already been let in during the trial.
So far as we companyld see, the accused have number challenged the order of the Magistrate dated February 24, 1969, allowing the prosecution to examine Satanarayan Agarwalla and an officer of the Directorate of Industries, Government of Orissa number have they challenged the order dated March 7, 1969, of the Magistrate allowing the prayer of the prosecution for examining Durga Dutt Chowdhury as a companyrt witness under section 540.
