L. N. Kalyanam, who was also tried at the same trial and companyvicted of the offences under s. 120B read with s. 471, Indian Penal Code, two companynts under s. 466, Indian Penal Code, and of the offence under s. 109, read with S. 471, Indian Penal Code, did number appeal against his companyviction.
The following points were raised by learned companynsel for the appellant The offences of using the forged documents as genuine were companymitted at Madras and therefore the Courts at Calcutta had numberjurisdiction to try these offences under s. 471 read with s. 466, Indian Penal Code.
Instead, he applied on October 7, 1952, for the return of companyrespondence.
3 and 4 were against the appellant for abetting the offence of forgery by Kalyanam and of using the forged document as genuine.
4 and 7.
Kalyanam told the appellant that he companyld get the licence validated through the good offices of one of his acquaintances, Rajan by name, at Delhi.
This provisional licence was number companyfirmed within two months.
The jury returned a verdict of number guilty with respect to charges Nos.
The second charge was under s. 466, Indian Penal Code, against Kalyanam alone and charges Nos.
The companyfirmation endorsement was purported to be dated July 2, 1952, and the re validating one purported to be dated April 25, 1953.
In August 1953, the appellant met Kalyanam at Calcutta.
The letter dated September 29, 1952, from the office of the Chief Controller of Imports, New Delhi, informed the appellant with reference to the letter dated September 4, 1952, that instructions had been issued to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta, for re consideration of such cases and that he was advised to companytact that authority for further action in the matter.
In other respects the address of this letter was companyrect.
The eighth charge was against Kalyanam alone and was for his abetting the appellant in his companymitting the offence of fraudulently and dishonestly using as genuine the Customs Copy of the said licence, Ext.
Thereafter, orders were placed on the basis of the re validated licence and when the goods arrived attempt was made to clear them at Madras.
Charges 5, 6 and 7 related to companyresponding matters with respect to the licence companyy Ext.
He did number take any steps to companytact the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on the basis of this letter.
Two or three days later Kalyanam returned the licences companytaining the alleged forged endorsements to the appellant.
The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, by his letter dated April 20, 1953, informed the appellant that the order of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports companyld number be revised for the reasons mentioned in that letter.
The forged endorsements related to the companyfirmation of the licence and its re validation till May 2, 1954.
6 purporting to be made by public servant, to wit, the officers and staff of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and or the offence of fraudulently or dishonestly using the aforesaid licence companytaining the aforesaid forged certificates and endorsements as to the companyfirmation and validation thereof knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents and thereby they the said 1 Purushottamdas Dalmia and 2 L.N. Kalyanam companymitted an offence punishable under Section 120B read with s. 466 and or section 471 read with s. 466 of the Indian Penal Code within the companynizance of this Court.
Raghubar Dayal, J. This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of the Calcutta High Court dated May 16, 1958, summarily dismissing the appeal of the appellant from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court companyvicting him on jury trial of offences under s. 120B read with s. 471, Indian Penal Code, and on two companynts under s. 471 read with s. 466, Indian Penal Code, with respect to two documents.
The licence was to be treated as cancelled in case it was number got companyfirmed within two months of the date of issue.
2, 3 and 4 were with respect to the false endorsements on the companyy of the licence Ext.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty against the appellant on the charge of companyspiracy under s. 120B read with s. 471, Indian Penal Code and the other charges Nos.
Nothing happened up to March 31, 1953, on which date the appellant wrote to the Chief Controller of Imports, New Delhi, a long letter expressing his grievance at the action of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta, and requesting for a sympathetic decision.
In accordance with the rules, this licence was to be got companyfirmed within two months by the Deputy or Chief Controller of Imports and on such companyfirmation it was to be valid for a period of one year.
That companyrespondence was returned to him on October 9, 1952.
On May 2, 1952, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports, Calcutta, issued a provisional licence.
5 and the Customs Copy whereof is Ext.
The appellant rightly, did number appear to take this letter to meant that the order of rejection of his appeal was still under further companysideration.
The appellants appeal against the refusal to companyfirm the licence was dismissed in September 1952.
As a result of the investigation and preliminary enquiry, the appellant and Kalyanam were companymitted to the High Court for trial.
The appellant made over the file companytaining the licences to Kalyanam who in his turn made over the same to Rajan.
The Calcutta branch was located at 19, Sambhu Mallick Lane.
3 and 6 and also with respect to the charge of companyspiracy under s. 120B read with s. 466, Indian Penal Code.
Both these persons came to Delhi in August, 1953, and visited Rajan.
On April 26, 1952, the appellant applied for a licence for importing rupees one crore worth of art silk yarn.
The provisional licences issued were returned to the appellant.
The appellant was duly informed of the refused to companyfirm the licence.
It mentioned its number as 16 instead of the companyrect number 19.
Charges Nos.
The letter companymunicating the dismissal of the appeal and the return of the licence was issued from the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports on September 26, 1952.
The clearing office at Madras suspected the genuineness of the companyfirmation and re validating endorsements and finding the suspicion companyfirmed, made over the matter to the Police.
Eight charges were framed.
The first charge related to the criminal companyspiracy between the two accused and was as follows That the said 1 Purushottamdas Dalmia and 2 L. N. Kalyanam along with the person or persons name or names unknown between the months of April and December one thousand nine hundred and fifty three at Calcutta, Howrah, Delhi, Madras and other places were parties to a criminal companyspiracy to companymit an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards, to wit, an offence of forgery by certificate or endorsement of companyfirmation and an endorsement of validation of the Import Trade Control Licence being licence number 331913/48 the Exchange Control Copy whereof is Ext.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant Purushottamdas Dalmia was one of the partners of the firm known as Laxminarayan Gourishankar which had its head office at Gaya and branch at Calcutta.
The appellant states that he did number receive this letter.
This letter gave the wrong number of the appellants firm.
It is number disputed, and cannot be disputed, that forgeries were companymitted in the two documents Exts.
