N Criminal Appeal No 115 of 1971
From the judgment and order dated 16th June 1970 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision Case No 650 of 1967 and 934 Criminal Appeals Nos
256 and 257 of 1971 Appeals by special leave from the judgments and order dated the 27 4 67 and 28 1 71 of the Calcutta High Court in Cases Nos 2 467 and 267 Second Criminal Sessions 1967 respectively
D Mookherjee and M N Shroff for the appellants in all the appeals
V section Desai A G Menseses J B Dadchanji  Co for respondents in Crl
256 5771
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J
These three appeals arise out of the same facts and it would therefore be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment
The respondent in all the three appeals is one Haridas Mundra
He was at all material times the managing director of section B Industrial Development Co Pvt Ltd who were the managing agents of a company called Richardson  Cruddas Ltd He and his brother Tulsidas Mundra were also directors of Richardson  Cruddas Ltd The Life Insurance Corporation of India which was the largest shareholder filed a petition in the High Court of Calcutta being Matter No 357 of 1957 seeking relief against mismanagement of Richardson  Cruddas Ltd under sections 397 and 398 of the 
The respondent and other directors were impleaded as party respondents to the petition
The High Court on the application of the Life Insurance Corporation made an interim order sometime in December 1957 appointing Sir Dhirendra Mitra as Special Officer to manage the affairs of Richardson  Cruddas Ltd There was an audit report made by Ms Gutgutia  Co Chartered Accountants in regard to the accounts of Richardson  Cruddas Ltd but the Special Officer was not satisfied with this report and he therefore after obtaining directions from the Company Judge appointed Ms Ferguson  Co a reputed firm of Chartered Accountants to examine the accounts of the Company and submit their report
Ferguson  Co found as a result of their investigation that there were two bills in the records of the Company one for Rs 412000 dated 20th June 1955 and the other for Rs 648900 dated 27th June 1955 purporting to be issued by a firm called Indian Machine Tools Co having its address at 7 Mission Row Calcutta showing purchase of certain machinery by Richardson  Cruddas Ltd from Indian Machine Tools Co and on the strength of these two bills entries were made in the books of account of Richardson  Cruddas Ltd on 24th June 1955 in respect of the first bill and on 29th June 1955 in respect of the second bill crediting the amounts of the bills to section B Industrial Development Co Pvt Ltd and debiting to the machinery account
On making inquiries Ferguson  Co discovered that there was no firm of Indian Machine Tools Co in existence at 7 Mission Row Calcutta and no machinery was in fact purchased or received by Richardson  Cruddas Ltd as shown in the two bills supposed to have been made out by Indian Machine Tools Co The conclusion reached by Ferguson  Co as a result of this probe was that Richard 935 son  Cruddas Ltd has been defrauded of an aggregate sum of Rs 1060900 representing the amounts of the two bills and that amount had been siphoned off to section B Industrial Development Co Pvt Ltd by using these two bills which were forged as genuine and they made a report to this effect to the Special officer
The Special Officer on receipt of the report made an application to the Company Judge for a direction that he might be authorised to lodge a complaint with the police for further investigation into these facts set out in the report
The Company Judge gave the necessary direction and the Special officer thereupon moved the police for making further investigation in the matter
The Special Police Establishment started the investigation and ultimately submitted a chargesheet against the respondent and Tulsidas Mundra in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate
The respondent and Tulsidas Mundra were committed by the Chief President Magistrate to stand their trial before the High Court on charges under sections 120B 409 471 read with section 468 and section 477A against the respondent and sections 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code against Tulsidas Mundra
When the trial commenced before the High Court the Public Prosecutor made two applications on 17th April 1967 one for amending the charges against the respondent by dropping sections 120B and 409 adding section 418 and the other for withdrawing the prosecution against Tulsidas Mundra
Both these applications were allowed by the High Court with the result that the trial proceeded only against the respondent on charges under sections 418 471 read with section 468 and section 477A Mr Justice Bagchi before whom the trial proceeded felt that he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial in view of section 1951c of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and he therefore requested the Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the respondent to argue the point as to the applicability of that section
The learned Judge after hearing the arguments advanced before him on both sides delivered an elaborate judgment holding that by reason of section 1951 c of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 which applied in the present case he had no jurisdiction to proceed further with the trial of the respondent and he accordingly discharged the respondent by an order dated 27th April 1967
The State being aggrieved by this judgment and order passed by Mr Justice Bagchi in the exercise of original criminal jurisdiction preferred a revision application against the same on the appellate side of the High Court
The respondent raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the revision application on the ground that it was not competent to the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction against an order made by a judge of the High Court in a Sessions trial
Since this preliminary objection raised a question of some importance it was referred to a full Bench and by a judgment dated 16th June 1970 the Full Bench upheld the preliminary objection and held that the High Court had no jurisdiction in revision of some importance it was referred to a Full Bench and by a judge of the High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction and accordingly rejected the revision application
936 It appears that the State had in the meantime filed an application in the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment and order of Mr Justice Bagchi
This application was rejected by the learned Judge by an order dated 28th January 1971 on the ground that it was not a judgment or a final order or a sentence falling within article 1341c of the Constitution
The State thereupon preferred two petitions in this Court for special leave to appeal one against the judgment and order of Mr Justice Bagchi discharging the respondent and the other against the judgment and order of the same learned Judge rejecting the application of the State for leave to appeal to this Court
This Court allowed both the petitions and granted special leave and hence we have Criminal Appeal No 256 of 1971 directed against the judgment and order of Mr Justice Bagchi discharging the respondent and Criminal Appeal No 257 of 1971 against the judgment and order of that learned Judge refusing leave to appeal to the State
The State also preferred an application in the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment and order of the Full Bench rejecting the revision application of the State and on this application leave was granted by the High Court under article 1341 c of the Constitution and that is how Criminal Appeal No 115 of 1971 is before us
We will first deal with Criminal Appeal No 256 of 1971
If that criminal appeal is allowed and it is held that section 1951 c has no applicability in the present case it would become unnecessary to consider the other two criminal appeals
Now section 1951c provides that no court shall take cognisance of an offence described in section 463 or punishable under sections 471 475 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code where such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of any document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding except on the complaint in writing of such court or of some other court to which such court is subordinate
Obviously on its plain language the inhabitation in section 1951 c applies only where a person is being tried for an offence described in section 463 or punishable under sections 471 475 or section 476
Here the respondent was being tried for three distinct offences under sections 418 471 and 477A So far as the offences under sections 418 and 477A are concerned they were plainly not covered by section 1951c and even if section 1951c were otherwise applicable it is difficult to see how the trial of the respondent for these two offences could be said to be vitiated on the ground that no complaint in writing was made by the Company Judge
The High Court had therefore clearly and indubitably jurisdiction to proceed with the trial against the respondent in respect of the offences under sections 418 and 477A
The question of lack of jurisdiction in the High Court to proceed with the trial could arise only in regard to the offence under section 471 which is one of the offences specified in section 1951 c
But in regard to this offence also we do not see how on the facts of the present case the applicability of section 195 1 c could be invoked on behalf of the respondent
The offence under section 471 which was charged against the respondent was that he had used the two forged bills of Indian Machine Tools Co as 937 genuine on 24th and 29th June 1955 by making on the strength of these two bills false entries in the books of account of Richardson  Cruddas Ltd crediting the aggregate sum of Rs 1060900 in the account of section B Industrial Development Co Pvt Ltd and debiting it in the machinery account
This offence was alleged to have been committed by the respondent on 24th and 29th June 1955 long before the proceeding in Matter No 357 of 1957 commenced and he became a party to that proceeding and it was not committed by him in his capacity as such party that is after having become a party to the proceeding
Now at one time there was sharp cleavage of opinion amongst various High Courts in regard to the true interpretation of section 1951 c
Some High Courts held that to attract the prohibition contained in section 1951c the offence should be alleged to have been committed by the party to the proceeding in his character as such party which means after having become a party to the proceeding while some others took the view that it was sufficient to attract the applicability of section 1951 c even if the alleged offence was committed by the party to the proceeding prior to his becoming such party provided that the document in question was produced or given in evidence in such proceeding
This divergence of opinion amongst different High Courts was set at rest by this Court by its decision in Patel Lal Gbhai Somabhai vs The State of Gujarat1 where this Court accepted the former view in preference to the latter
This Court pointed out that the words of section 1951 c clearly meant that the offence should be alleged to have been committed by the party to the proceeding in his character as such party that is after having become a party to the proceeding
Sections 1951c 476 and 476A read together indicated beyond doubt that the legislature could not have intended to extend the prohibition contained in section 1951 c to the offences mentioned therein when committed by a party to a proceeding prior to his becoming such party
The scope and ambit of section 1951 c was thus restricted by this Court to cases where the offence was alleged to have been committed by a party to a proceeding after he became such party and not before
This view as to the interpretation of section 1951 c was reaffirmed by this Court in Raghunath vs State of UP2 and Mohan Lal vs The State of Rajasthan3
It must inevitably follow on this view that since the offence charged against the respondent was one alleged to have been committed by him before he became a party to the proceeding in Matter No 357 of 1957 section 1951c had no application
It may also be noted that neither of the two forged bills of Indian Machine Tools Co was produced or given in evidence in the proceeding in Matter No 357 of 1957
Both these forged bills formed part of the record of Richardson  Cruddas Ltd and they were taken possession of by the Special Officer along with the other record of the Company and nobody produced them or tendered them in evidence before the Company Judge in the proceeding in Matter No 357 of 1957
The requirement of section 1951 c that the document in question should be 938 produced or given in evidence in the proceeding was therefore clearly not satisfied and on this ground also section 1951 c was not attracted in the present case
We must therefore hold that the High Court was entitled to proceed with the trial of the respondent in respect of the offence under section 471 without any complaint in writing from the Company Judge before whom the proceeding in Matter No 357 of 1957 was pending
We accordingly allow Criminal Appeal No256 of 1971 set aside the judgment of Mr Justice Bagchi discharging the respondent and remand the case to the City Sessions Court to which the original criminal jurisdiction in Sessions cases has now been transferred for disposal according to law
Since the case is a very old one we would direct the City Sessions Court to take it up for hearing at an early date
In the view taken by us in Criminal Appeal No 256 of 1971 Criminal Appeals Nos 115 and 257 of 1971 do not survive for consideration and we accordingly dismiss them
PBR Cr A 256 of 1971 allowed
115  257 of 1971 dismissed


Summary:
The respondent a director of a company was charged with offences under sections 418 and 471 read with sections 468 and 477A IPC on the ground that he defrauded the company
At the trial a single Judge of the High Court discharged the respondent on the view that he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial by reason of s1951c of the Cr PC 1898
The full Bench of the High Court affirmed the view of the single Judge
Allowing the appeals to this Court  HELD The High Court was entitled to proceed with the trial of the respondent in respect of offences under section 471 without any complaint in writing from the company Judge whom the proceeding was pending
938A 1 Section 1951c of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence described in section 463 or punishable under sections 471 475 and 476 Indian Penal Code where such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of any document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding except on the complaint in writing of such court or of some other court to which such court is subordinate
The High Court had clearly and indubitably jurisdiction to proceed with the trial against the respondent in respect of offences under sections 418 and 477A On its plain language the inhibition in section 1951c applies only where a person is being tried for an offence under section 463 or punishable under sections 471 475 or 476
Offences under 418 and section 477A are plainly not covered by section 1951c Cr
PC 936 D G 2 In regard to offences under section 471 IPC it could not be said that the respondent could invoke the applicability of section 1951c
The offence under section 471 was committed by the respondent long before the proceeding in the Company matter commenced and he became a party to that proceeding and it was not committed by him in his capacity as such party ie after having become a party to the proceeding
In Patel Laljibhai Somabhai vs The State of Gujarat this Court restricted the scope and ambit of section 195 1c to cases where the offence was alleged to have been committed by a party to a proceeding after he became such party and not before
936H 937A D Raghunath vs State of UP AIR 1973 SC 1100 and Mohan Lal vs The State of Rajasthan AIR 1974 SC 299 referred to
In the instant case since the offence charged against the respondent was one alleged to have been committed by him before he became a party to the proceeding in the company matter section 1951c had no application
Secondly the forged bills had not been produced in evidence before the Company Judge in the proceeding before him
The requirement of section 1951c that the document in question should be produced or given in evidence in the proceeding was therefore clearly not satisfied and on this ground also section 1951c was not attracted in the present case
937G 938A