This Special Bench heard the two applications in revision and dismissed them by its order dated December 22/23, 1960.
For these reasons I have companye to the companyclusion that there are numbergood grounds for interfering with the judgment and order of the Special Bench dated December 22/33, 1960.
The companyplaint was filed against four persons the appellants herein and two other persons, Narendra Nath Law and Amiya Chakravarty.
There are various other companysiderations which point to the ineluctable prima facie companyclusion of forgery.
An appeal was filed in pursuance of that special leave, but ultimately Promode Ranjan Sarkar withdrew his appeal by filing a petition on February 3, 1959.
1,500 100 2,000/ per month and the deed bears the signature of accused No.
On the question as to which of the four accused persons against whom process should issue, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate came to the companyclusion that there was a prima facie case against two of the accused persons only, namely, Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Saurindra Mohan Basu.
Thereafter, an application in revision was made by Promode Ranjan Sarkar to the High Court of Calcutta, which gave rise to Revision Case No.
A previous companyplaint on more or less the same allegations was made by Promode Ranjan Sarkar, second brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar.
It was alleged that the meeting was held irregularly without any agenda and a resolution was adopted, despite Promode Ranjan Sarkars protest, by which the appointment of Pramatha Nath Talukdar as Managing Director of N. R. Sarkar Co. Ltd. was renewed for seven years.
Promode Ranjan Sarkar applied for special leave from this Court and obtained such leave on February 13, 1956.
In regard to the filing of a second companyplaint it held that a fresh companyplaint companyld be entertained after the dismissal of previous companyplaint under s. 203 Criminal Procedure Code when there was manifest error or manifest miscarriage of justice or when fresh evidence was forthcoming.
In regard to the unregistered deed of agreement appointing P. Taluqdar as Managing Director of N.R. Sarkar Co. Ltd., he can have numberinterest.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 22 23, 1960, and from the order dated March 17, 1961 of the Calcutta High Court in Cr.
Four appeals were filed by the two appellants, two against the order of the High Court of Calcutta dismissing the revision petition and two against the order of the High Court refusing a certificate under Art.
This application was dealt with by a Bench of two Judges of the Calcutta High Court Das Gupta and Bachawat, JJ.
J. as he then was was inclined to take the view that the applications in revision must fail, but in deference to the views expressed by P.B. Mukherjee, J. agreed that the applications should be referred to the Chief Justice for companystituting a larger Bench.
That apart, the companyplaint is for an offence triable by a Court of sessions.
He companypared various signatures of the late N. R. Sarkar and after companysidering the elaborate order of his predecessor he said I have read and re read it and with respect too due to one of his eminence, but it is my misfortune that I have number been persuaded.
It was alleged that the balance of 1000 shares held by Nalini Ranjan Sarkar was kept in custody with Pramatha Nath Talukdar and according to the case of the companyplainant these shares were kept in deposit with Pramatha Nath Talukdar for the benefit of the companyplainant and this brothers.
On April 3, 1959, respondent filed in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, a companyplaint under sections 467, 471 read with s. 109 of the Indian Panel Code against the two appellants, Dr. N. Law and A. Chakravarti.
N. R. Sarkar died on January 25, 1953.
It is alleged that a few days after the death of Mr. N. R. Sarkar, the appellant, Sourindra Mohan Basu in a casual manner informed Promode Ranjan Sarkar that his brother N. R. Sarkar had executed two documents one an unregistered deed of agreement dated January 19, 1948, appointing the appellant P. N. Taluqdar as the Managing Director of N. R. Sarkar Co., Ltd. and a deed of transfer dated February 5, 1951, transferring 1,000 shares in N. R. Sarkar Co. Ltd., in his P. N. Taluqdars favour.
In September, 1953 Promode Ranjan Sarkar formally wrote to N.R. Sarkar Co. Ltd. for inspection of the alleged deeds of agreement and transfer.
It is alleged that the appellants and other entered into a criminal companyspiracy and fraudulently forged certain documents which in the companyplaint are described thus An unregistered deed of agreement purporting to have been executed by the late Sri Nalini Ranjan Sarkar as Governing Director of N. R. Sarkar Company Limited on 19th January 1948, while he was on leave as stated above appointing accused No.
He stated I have given this matter very careful companysideration gone through various reports and papers and even examined an important witness myself.
Mr. R. Sarkar joined the Government on January 23, 1948 and in August 1948 Dr. N. N. Law became a director of N. R. Sarkar Co., Ltd. On July 31, 1951 Mr. N. R. Sarkar executed a deed of trust in respect of 2920 shares out of his holding in Hindusthan Cooperative Society Ltd. and 3649 shares out of the shares held by him in N. R. Sarkar Co. Ltd. By this deed he appointed as trustees his younger brother Promode Ranjan Sarkar, appellant P. N. Taluqdar and Dr. N. N. Law and the beneficiaries under the trust deed were his four younger brothers including the companyplainant and Shanti Ranjan Sarkar, his nephew.
On December 12, 1953 Pramode Rajan Sarkar laid an information with the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, against the persons against whom the above mentioned companyplaint was later filed.
The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate held that there was numbersufficient ground for proceedings against the other two accused persons, namely, Narendra Nath Law and Amiya Chakravarty.
Saurindra Mohan Basu, it may be stated here, was a solicitor of N.R. Sarkar Co. Ltd. and had attested the signature of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar on the unregistered deed of agreement.
134 1 c of the Constitution, but such a certificate was refused by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court on September 1, 1955.
On all these three points the finding of the Special Bench was against the appellants.
This led to trouble between Promode Ranjan Sarkar and the appellant P. Taluqdar and there was some companyrespondence between Promode Ranjan Sarkar and the appellant P. Taluqdar which it is unnecessary to refer to.
In that petition he stated that at the intervention of Common friends and well wishers of the parties, he had settled his disputes with the respondents therein and did number want to proceed with the appeal The appeal was accordingly withdrawn on March 12, 1959.
On October 13, 1953, he took inspection of the Minute book and took photostat companyies of some of the documents but number of the resolution of January 16, 1948.
On September 22, 1953 a meeting of the Board of Directors of N.R. Sarkar Co. Ltd. was held.
These applications in revision were first heard by a division Bench of two Judges of the Calcutta High Court, P. B. Mukherjee and H. K. Bose, JJ.
The matter was then referred to the learned Chief Justice, who companystituted a Special Bench of three Judges to hear the two applications in revision.
1059 of 1954.
It is against this judgment and that the appellants have companye in appeal to this companyrt by Special Leave.
He showed cause and the matter was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of P. B. Mukerjee and H. Bose, JJ.,
Against this order the companyplainant Pramode Ranjan Sarkar took a revision to the Calcutta High Court which was heard by Debabrata Mookerjee, J. Before him three companytentions were raised 1 that the Chief Presidency Magistrate erred in examining the witnesses himself after he had received the result of the enquiry held by Mr. A. B. Shyam, another Magistrate, under s. 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 2 the learned Magistrate misunderstood the scope of ss.
H.K. Bose.
The facts of these appeals are these In 1944 a private limited companypany N. R. Sarkar Co., Ltd. was formed by the late Mr. N. R. Sarkar, who was a well known financier and industrialist and a public man of Bengal.
The matter was heard by the Chief Presidency Magistrate Mr. N. C. Chakraborty who after examining all the witnesses who were produced before him dismissed the companyplaint by an order dated August 6, 1954.
In the second companyplaint certain other circumstances were also alleged in support of the allegation that the unregistered deed of agreement dated January 19, 1948 and the minutes of the proceedings dated January, 16, 1948 were forged.
It appears that the matter was investigated by the police and by a letter dated February 16, 1954, the Police Commissioner expressed the opinion that there was numbersubstance in the allegations which were being made by Pramode Ranjan Sarkar against the appellants and two others.
1 P. N. Taluqdar as the Managing Director of N. R. Sarkar Company Limited on a remuneration of Rs.
It companyld number be said therefore that there was a judicial enquiry of the matter before the previous Chief Presidency Magistrate the decision was rather arbitrary and so resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice.
Nalini Ranjan Sarkar died on January 25, 1953.
This application in revision was dismissed on July 8, 1955 by Debabrata Mookerjee, Promode Ranjan Sarkar then applied for a certificate under Art.
This refusal was based primarily on the ground that the order sought to be appealed from was number a final order within the meaning of the Article aforesaid.
Appellant P. N. Taluqdar who was a paid employee of the Hindusthan Cooperative Insurance Co., Ltd. held 300 shares and was a director of the Company and Shanti Ranjan Sarkar, a son of N. R. Sarkars deceased brother, held one share.
Against this order an application was made for a certificate under Art.
The question is one of general importance and has given rise to some divergence of opinion in the High Courts.
December 21.
It was alleged that a few days after the funeral ceremony had been performed, Saurindra Mohan Basu casually informed Promode Ranjan Sarkar that his brother Nalini Ranjan Sarkar had executed two documents to wit, an unregistered deed of agreement dated January 19, 1948 by which Pramatha Nath Talukdar was appointed Managing Director of R. Sarkar Co. Ltd. and a deed of transfer of 1000 shares dated February 5, 1951 in favour of Pramatha Nath Talukdar.
J., he forcefully companytended that the refusal to take numberice of the circumstances relating to the installation of the City Exchange amounted to a denial of justice.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
On March 17, 1954, Pramode Ranjan Sarkar filed a companyplaint under ss.
Promode Ranjan Sarkar and his brothers without giving much credence to this information wanted to see the documents but they were number allowed to do so.
Against the aforesaid order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate two applications in revision were filed by the appellants herein.
467, 471 and ss.457, 471 read with s. After setting out the facts which have been given above and after referring to the three documents which were alleged to have been forged it was stated that the deed of agreement was engrossed on a stamp paper purchased in the name of P.D. Himmatsinghka Co., a firm of solicitors, instead of in the name of the parties that the resolution of January 16, 1948, which purported to bear the signature of the deceased was in fact number signed by him that during the lifetime of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar and after a companysiderable period after his death the appellant, P. N. Taluqdar, never alleged that he had been appointed the Managing Director of N. R. Sarkar Co. Ltd., number did even appear from any resolution of the Board of N. R. Sarkar Co., that he was appointed the Managing Director until September, 1953.
75 and 77 of 1961.
Then, within about 22 days of that order, Saroj Ranjan Sarkar filed the companyplaint which has given rise to the present proceedings.
On July 31, 1953, appellant P. N. Taluqdar resigned from the Hindusthan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd., in order to take companytrol of N. R. Sarkar Co Ltd., as it Managing Director.
A. No.
It may be pointed out that on behalf of companyplainant Pramode Ranjan Sarkar an application was made on June 6, 1955, drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that on the sheet of a paper on which the minutes of the meeting held on January 16, 1948, had been typed there was printed Telephone City 6091 and that Exchange had number companye into existence till December, 1948.
Meetings of the said N. R. Sarkar Company Limited including those of a meeting dated 16th January, 1948, purporting to bear the signature of the aforesaid late Sri Nalini Ranjan Sarkar.
His younger brother Promode Ranjan Sarkar held 50 shares.
On May 7, 1959, process was issued against the appellants by the Chief Presidency Magistrate.
For companyvenience and brevity, I shall refer to Promode Ranjan Sarkars companyplaint as the first companyplaint and Saroj Ranjan Sarkars as the second companyplaint.
Revision Nos.
Therefore, the present judgment relates to the two appeals numbered 75 and 77 of 1961 which are from the judgment and order of the Special Bench dated December 22/23, 1960.
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of N. R. Sarkar Co., held on September 22, 1953, the appointment of appellant P. N. Taluqdar as Managing Director of N. R. Sarkar Co. Ltd., was renewed for a period of seven years.
202 and 203 and misdirected himself by insisting upon a standard of proof which the law did number require at the initial stage when the only question was whether the process should issue or number and the third companytention related to the power of revision of High Court under s. 439 when dealing with orders of a Chief Presidency Magistrate.
The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, who took companynizance of the second companyplaint, Mr. Bijoyesh Mookerjee, after companysidering the whole material placed before him issued process against the appellants only.
The Bench was of the opinion that the fact in regard to the City Telephone Exchange was a new matter and because Pramode Ranjan Sarkar was number permitted to take a photostat companyy of the Minutes Book, it was possible that his attention was number drawn to the City Telephone Exchange which was number in existence at the relevant time and that there was sufficient reason for Pramode Ranjan Sarkar for number mentioning the matter of City Exchange in his companyplaint.
Certain other allegations which need number be set out at this stage were also made in this companyplaint for the purpose of showing that the appellants had been guilty of forgery and for using forged documents and for companyspiracy.
134 1 c of the Constitution of India that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.
The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate examined the handwriting expert and after taking all the facts into companysideration he held that the evidence on handwriting including the opinion of the Handwriting Expert does number support the companyplainants version.
It was number stated when the companyplainant came to know of this fact.
On April 3, 1959, I do number pause here to state the allegations made in that petition, a shall have occasion to refer to them in detail later on.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant in Cr.
It also held that the previous Chief Presidency Magistrate Mr. Chakraborty had altogether ignored the evidence of a large number of witnesses who were companypetent to prove the handwriting and signature of N. R. Sarkar and he had numbergood reasons for number accepting their evidence.
In pursuance of the special leave granted by this Court four appeals were filed, two against the order dated December 22/23, 1960 and the other two against the order dated March 17, 1961.
77 of 1961 .
467 and 471 read with s. 109 of the Indian penal Code on a companyplaint made by Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, respondent herein.
2 as attesting witness both for the transferor and transferee.
The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate then said Prima facie, I am satisfied about the truth of the allegations the companyplaint makes.
The two appeals numbered 76 and 78 of 1961 from the order dated March 17, 1961 were withdrawn on the ground that special leave having been granted against the order of the Special Bench dated December 22/23, 1960, the appellants did number wish to press the appeals from the later order dated March, 17, 1961.
A. No.
By the first order a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed two applications in revision which the appellants had made to the said High Court against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta dated April 11, 1959 by which the said Magistrate issued processes against the two appellants for offences alleged to have been companymitted by them under ss.
1,00,000 Rupees One Lakh also purporting to have been executed by the late Sri Nalini Ranjan Sarkar on 5th February, 1951, with accused No.
Purushottam Trikamdas, Prasunchandra Ghosh, C. Mitter and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant in Cr.
By an order dated April 10, 1961 this Court granted special leave asked for by the two appellants herein, Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Saurindra Mohan Basu, to appeal to this Court from two orders made by the High Court of Calcutta, one dated December 22/23, 1960 and the other dated March 17, 1961.
The judgment was delivered by K. Das, J. I regret that I have companye to a companyclusion different from that of my learned brethren in these appeals.
1019 and 681 of 1959.
By the second order a Division Bench of the said High Court refused the prayer of the appellants for a certificate under Art.
A transfer deed in respect of 1000 shares of N. R. Sarkar Co. Ltd., which has been entrusted to accused No.
1 for an alleged companysideration of Rs.
As this Court granted special leave against the order of the High Court dismissing the Revision Petition the two appeals against the order refusing a certificate under Art.
Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, who is the youngest brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sakar a well known public man, financier and industrialist of Bengal filed a petition of companyplaint in the companyrt of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.
The rules were therefore discharged.
I see numberreasons to differ from the view thus expressed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate and the High Court.
He held that he was satisfied about the truth of the allegations and there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants under s. 204, Criminal Procedure Code and he therefore issued process against them but did number issue any process against Dr. N. N. Law and Amiya Chakravarty who were accused Nos.
Of the aforesaid three documents the one relating to the alleged transfer of 1000 shares referred to as 2 above, is the subject of a separate suit stated to be number pending in the Calcutta High Court.
That companyplaint was made on March 17, 1954 and was dismissed under s. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the then Chief Presidency Magistrate, Shri N. C. Chakravarti, on August 6, 1954.
This companyplaint was brought on April 3, 1959, the appeal in this Court brought by Pramode Ranjan Sarkar the companyplainant in the previous companyplaint, having been withdrawn on March 2, 1959.
I have heard numberhing in the companyrse of the arguments addressed before us which would justify me to go behind those findings, particularly in an appeal filed by special leave under Art.
3 and 4.
The respective appellants in the two appeals are P. N. Taluqdar and Sourindra Mohan Basu an attorney of Calcutta against whom process has been issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate Calcutta on a companyplaint filed by the respondent Saroj Ranjan Sarkar.
2 S. N. Basu as the sole attesting witness.
The Court was of the opinion therefore that there was numberreason to differ from the finding of the Chief Presidency Magistrate Mr. Bijoyesh Mukerjee and that there was a prima facie case against the appellants.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, Alak Gupta, S.N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra for the respondents.
1 as stated before, transferring them to accused No.
He held that there was numberdelay on the part of the respondent in making the companyplaint that the previous companyplaint and the result thereof was numberbar to the filing of the second companyplaint that the companyplaint was number brought with a view to blackmail the accused including the appellants, that what the brother of the respondent did, did number lay the respondent open to the charge of blackmail.
75/61 .
I proceed number to state the necessary facts, the arguments advanced before us and my companyclusions on the various questions urged.
Minutes of the proceedings of the Board.
The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate and a Bench of three Judges of the Calcutta High Court held specifically on the second companyplaint that there was a prima facie case and the dismissal of the first companyplaint resulted in manifest injustice.
These documents, it is alleged, are forged and have been used and by the use of these forged documents a fraud has been perpetrated.
Let me first state the facts which have led to the filing of the second companyplaint in the present case.
As Mr. N. R. Sarkar became the Finance Minister in the West Bengal Government, he obtained leave of absence on January 4, 1948, from the directors of N. R. Sarkar Co. Ltd. for a period of one year which was subsequently extended for another year.
This companypany was the Managing Agent of several public limited companypanies such as Hindusthan Development Corporation Ltd., Hindusthan Chemicals Limited, Hindusthan Pilkington Glass Works Limited etc.
The Judgment of Kapur and Hidayatullah, JJ.,
This in spite of the protest of Promode Ranjan Sarkar and in spite of the fact that that item was number on the agenda of the meeting.
On the merits he took into companysideration the fact in regard to the City Exchange of which according to the learned Magistrate he companyld take judicial numberice under s. 57 of the Evidence Act.
and the matter was referred to a larger Bench because of the importance of the questions of law which arose in the case.
I would accordingly dismiss the two appeals.
Three questions were raised before the Special Bench, 1 whether under the appellate side rules of the High Court it was companypetent for a Division Bench companysisting of two judges to refer any matter to a larger bench for decision in a criminal matter 2 whether a second companyplaint companyld be entertained on the same facts after a previous companyplaint had been dismissed and 3 whether the companyplaint companyld be taken companynizance of by the Magistrate in the absence of a sanction under s. 196A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On this occasion Promode Ranjan Sarkar also inspected the minutes of the proceedings of R. Sarkar Co. Ltd. and it was alleged that the proceedings dated January 16, 1948 purporting to bear the signature of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar were forged.
was delivered by KAPUR, J. There are two appeals against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta which raise the question of companypetency of a second companyplaint in regard to the same matter after the first companyplaint has been dismissed under s. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mr. N. R Sarkar was the Managing Director of N. R. Sarkar Co., Ltd. Out of the share capital of this companypany he held 4649 shares.
This was by a resolution passed on March 10, 1948.
On October 1,1953, Promode Ranjan Sarkar took inspection of the agreement.
The first was whether the Special Bench was lawfully in seizin of the case and was companypetent to deal with the applications in revision.
When the companyplainant made an application for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court against the order passed by Dababrata Mookerjee.
