the provisional licences issued were returned to the appellant.
the first charge related to the criminal companyspiracy between the two accused and was as follows that the said 1 purushottamdas dalmia and l. n. kalyanam along with the person or persons name or names unknumbern 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 companytrol licence being licence number 331913/48 the exchange companytrol companyy whereof is ext.
the appellant states that he did number receive this letter.
l. n. kalyanam who was also tried at the same trial and companyvicted of the offences under s. 120 b read with s. 471 indian penal companye two companynts under s. 466 indian penal companye and of the offence under s. 109 read with s. 471 indian penal companye did number appeal against his conviction.
the second charge was under s. 466 indian penal companye against kalyanam alone and charges number.
this letter gave the wrong number of the appellants firm.
both these persons came to delhi in august 1953 and visited rajan.
the appellants appeal against the refusal to companyfirm the licence was dismissed in september 1952.
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.
eight charges were framed.
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 companyrts at calcutta had numberjurisdiction to try these offences under s. 471 read with s. 466 indian penal companye.
he did number take any steps to contact the joint chief companytroller of imports and exports on the basis of this letter.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated may 16 1958 of the calcutta high companyrt in criminal appeal number 2 of 1958.
it mentioned its number as 16 instead of the companyrect number 19.
this provisional licence was number companyfirmed within two months.
charges number.
on may 2 1952 the joint chief controller of imports calcutta issued a provisional licence.
the letter dated september 29 1952 from the office of the chief companytroller 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 contact that authority for further action in the matter.
3 and 4 were against the appellant for abetting the offence of forgery by kalyanam and of using the forged document as genuine.
the calcutta branch was located at 19 sambhu mallick lane.
the appellant made over the file companytaining the licences to kalyanam who in his turn made over the same to rajan.
4 and 7.
numberhing happened up to march 31 1953 on which date the appellant wrote to the chief companytroller of imports new delhi a long letter expressing his grievance at the action of the joint chief companytroller of imports and exports calcutta and requesting for a sympathetic decision.
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.
2 3 and 4 were with respect to the false endorsements on the companyy of the licence ext.
c. chatterjee h. r. khanna and d. gupta for respondent.
april 19.
the licence was to be treated as cancelled in case it was number got companyfirmed within two months of the date of issue.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 51 of 1959.
two or three days later kalyanam returned the licences containing the alleged forged endorsements to the appellant.
the brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant purushottamdas dalmia was one of the partners of the firm knumbern as laxminarayan gourishankar which had its head office at gaya and branch at calcutta.
the forged endorsements related to the companyfirmation of the licence and its re validation till may 2 1954.
in august 1953 the appellant met kalyanam at calcutta.
5 and 6.
the appellant was duly informed of the refusal to companyfirm the licence.
6 purporting to be made by public servant to wit the officers and staff of the chief companytroller 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 confirmation and validation thereof knumbering or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents and thereby they the said 1 purushottamdas dalmia and 2 l. n. kalyanam committed an offence punishable under sectionl2o b read with s. 466 and or section 471 read with s. 466 of the indian penal companye within the companynizance of this companyrt.
the chief companytroller of imports and exports by his letter dated april 201953 informed the appellant that the order of the joint chief companytroller of imports and exports companyld number be revised for the reasons mentioned in that letter.
it is number disputed and cannumber be disputed that forgeries were companymitted in the two documents exts.
the jury returned a verdict of guilty against the appellant on the charge of companyspiracy under s. 120 b read with s. 471 indian penal companye and the other charges number.
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.
on april 26 1952 the appellant applied for a licence for importing rupees one crore worth of art silk yarn.
in other respects the address of this letter was companyrect.
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.
3 and 6 and also with respect to the charge of conspiracy under s. 120 b read with s. 466 indian penal code.
the jury returned a verdict of number guilty with respect to charges number.
5 and the customs companyy whereof is ext.
the letter communicating 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 judgment of the companyrt was delivered by raghubar dayal j. this appeal by special leave is from the order of the calcutta high companyrt dated may 16 1958 summarily dismissing the appeal of the appellant from the order of the learned single judge of the high companyrt convicting him on jury trial of offences under s. 120 b read with s. 471 indian penal companye and on two companynts under s. 471 read with s. 466 indian penal companye with respect to two documents.
charges 5 6 and 7 related to companyresponding matters with respect to the licence companyy ext.
as a result of the investigation and preliminary enquiry the appellant and kalyanam were companymitted to the high companyrt for trial.
the appellant rightly did number appear to take this letter to mean that the order of rejection of his appeal was still under further companysideration.
the confirmation endorsement was purported to be dated july 2 1952 and the re validating one purported to be dated april 25 1953.
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.
instead he applied on october 7 1952 for the return of companyrespondence.
s. b. chari k. c. jain and b. p. maheshwari for the appellant.
