20 with the managing agency firm Das Group appear to have been erased out and the agreement was thus tampered with, 5 the minute book Ext.
5,78,941 7 0 which was lying with the previous managing agents of the Company Messrs Das Brothers had since been realised, and if so, the evidence adjusting the liability,.
A revision application was filed in the High Court of Calcutta against that order, but the application was rejected.
Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal has been filed with special leave.
The Presidency Magistrate, 9th Court, to whom the case was transferred for trial, rejected the companytention raised by companynsel for the defence that to a charge made against a director in relation to the affairs of the companypany, the Indian Penal Code can have numberapplication, and the prosecution, if any, may be instituted under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act alone.
and if number, to intimate with material evidence whether any steps had since been taken by the Company for the realization of the dues and how the matter stood.
The Magistrate also held that it was open to the police officer to whom the case was referred for investigation to submit a charge sheet of his own initiative and that the Court had jurisdiction to enquire into the charge so made without the sanction of the High Court.
In the companyrse of investigation of the companyplaint referred to him, Sub Inspector J.N. Mukherjee filed a First Information against eight persons including the five appellants in this appeal charging them with having, companyspired to companymit criminal breach of trust in respect of the companypanys funds, falsification of accounts and making false returns, balance sheets and accounts, and in furtherance of the object of the companyspiracy with companymitting offences punishable under ss.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 21, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
5,78,941 7 0 due by a firm in which a director of the Company was a partner.
18 is also a forged document.
86 D and 87 D of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
The companyplainant requested that a through investigation .be made in the matter.
5, and last under s. 477A against 1 Aimoban Das, 2 Nara Singha Pal, 3 Mohendra Lal Kundu, 4 Provat Kumar Sarkar and 5 Sisir Kumar Das in respect of falsification of shareholders minute book Ext.
The circumstances which lent companyour to the prosecution, in the view of the learned Magistrate were 1 that Ext.
On September 29, 1956, the Additional Registrar of Companies again wrote a letter .to the Company enquiring whether the amount of Rs.
5 which companytains the minutes of a resolution authorising Almohan Das to retain the funds of the Company.
K. Sen, P.K. Chatterjee, M.M. Kshatriya and G.S. Chatterjee, for the appellants.
He observed having regard to the entire evidence on record and facts and circumstances of the case, I am companyvinced prima facie that good grounds exist for framing charge under s. 409 I.P.C. against accused Almohan Das with charge under s. 120B read with s. 409 I.P. Code aaginst 1 Almohan Das, 2 Sisir K. Das, 3 Nara Singha Pal, 4 Mohendra Lal Kundu and 5 Provat Kumar Sarkar, another charge under s. 467 read with s. 34 I.P. Code against 1 Almohan Das, 2 Nara Singha Pal, and 3 Mohendra L. Kundu for forging Ext.
120B read with 409 477A I.P. Code before the Court of Session.
309 of 1966.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In reply thereto by letter dated July 12, 1956, the Managing Agents wrote that as the money was held by the managing agents and was number given or treated as a loan, there was numberresolution of the Board of Directors in that companynection.
After investigation, Sub Inspector Mukherjee submitted on February 29, 1958, a report under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate for those offences against seven persons including the five appellants.
in the companyrse of the investigation the officer in charge attached a directors minutes book Ext.
Sen and P.K. Chakravarti, for the respondent.
129 of 1966.
Proceedings were then resumed by the Magistrate on December 5, 1961, and a large number of witnesses were examined before him and several documents were tendered in evidence.
On July 2, 1951, Das Group Ltd. of which also Almohan Das was the principal Director took over the managing agency.
The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal filed a companyplaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate alleging that sometime between March 1, 1945 and December 31, 1947 a sum of .Rs.
By letter dated June 21, 1956, the Additional Registrar of Companies asked the Company to furnish a certified companyy of the minutes of the Board of Directors .in which the loan had been made to the managing agents of the Company.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Mahendra Lal and Probhat Kumar Sarkar were the promoters, and Almohan Das was the first Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Great Indian Steam Navigation Company Ltd. Messrs. Das Brothers of which Almohan Das was the sole proprietor became the managing agents of the Company in 1945.
18 purporting to ratify the action of Almohan Das regarding the funds of the G.I.S.N. Co. Ltd. Against this order, a revision application was filed in the High Court of Calcutta which wasrejected in limine.
7,23,031 9 6 was advanced by the.
Company to the managing agents Messrs Das Brothers that on July 2, 1951 Messrs Das Brothers resigned from the managing agency and Messrs Das Group Ltd. took over the managing agency that Almohan Das was at all material times a director of the companypany and also a director of Messrs Das Group Ltd. and the sole proprietor of Messrs Das Brothers and that the companyplainant had reason to believe that Almohan Das with other directors of the companypany had companymitted offences under ss.
18 starts from February 28, 1945, although the Company was incorporated in 1942, 2 in many meetings the signatures of the shareholders were number taken although in some meetings the shareholders signed the minutes book, 3 resolutions of Amaresh Pramanick and Sudhir Kanti Sarkar are number incorporated in the minutes book, 4 some portions in the last page in the agreement Ext.
On December 3, 1965, the Presidency Magistrate companymitted the accused to stand trial for offences under ss.
409 and 477A I.P. Code and under s. 282 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
But this, it is the case of the prosecution, was number supported by any resolution passed by the Board of Directors.
The Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, referred the case to the police for investigation.
