Case: State Of Gujarat Vs. Acharya Shri Devendraprasadji

2. The respondent is one of the trustees of a trust known as shri Swami Naravan Mandir" at Ahmedbad which is registered as s public trust in the office of the Charity Commissioner. The trust is managed under a scheme prepared by the High Court of Bombay. It appears, that the Charity Commissioner learnt about certain constructions having been made by the respondent trustee without permission from him. On March 22, 1962 a letter (Ext.3) was addressed from his office to the respondent the material part of which may be reproduced:"An information is received of the Charity Commissioner that opposite the temple near the New Narnarayan building the blocks are being constructed in which shops are construed on the ground floor of that building.      1. For what purpose it is constructed?      2. From when its construction work is started ?      3. What amount is spent till today in construction of the same ?      4. What amount is to be spent still ?      5. How much income will accrue from it ?      6. By which No. and on what date the permission of the Charity Commissioner is taken for constructing the same.      7. To which contractors are given the contracts for constructing the Same ? His name, address, amount of the contract and other details and a copy of the contract.      8. If the committee has passed a resolution for constructing the same, its true copy.      9. If a contract is given to any contractor, then whether that contractor is related or acquainted to any member of the committee. All these necessary information may please be sent before 15-4-1962."Queries on similar lines were made regarding the constructions near the respondents bungalow in Girdharnagar.      3. As no reply was received from the respondent reminders were sent to him on April 20, 1962 and May 10, 1962 followed by a telegram dispatched on May 23, 1962. A reply was sent by the respondent giving the particulars of the buildings which had been constructed. Reference was made to the resolutions of the Committee relating to these constructions together with the amount spent on them.      4. The Inspector appointed under the Act made a report dated May 4, 1963 giving the result of the enquiry made by him relating to the aforesaid constructions. According to him 8 shops had been constructed adjoining the Narnarayan building opposite the Swaminarayan temple, the estimated cost of which was more than Rs. 2 lacs. On Plot No. 98-A shops were being built in four blocks. Construction was also being made on another plot No. 98-A-2 opposite the railway crossing. On May 30, 1962 the Charity Commissioner instituted a complaint in the court of the City Magistrate at Ahmedabad giving most of these facts and stating inter alia that under the provisions of the Act a trustee who desired to invest trust funds in construction of buildings was bound to obtain permission of the Charity Commissioner which had not been done in the present case. According to him the respondent had deliberately committed a breach of the relevant provisions of the Act and had omitted to comply with the notice dated May 22, 1962. The gravamen of the charge was contained in paragraph 7 according to which the respondent had, without reasonable cause, filed to comply with the order and the directions issued to him under the provisions of S. 37 of the Act.      5. The respondent filed an application (Ext. 6) before the Magistrate submitting that the investment of the trust funds made in the construction of the building adjacent to the Namarayan Bhavan was legal and had been done in good faith. It was for the benefit of the institution. The scheme committee had given its consent by passing resolutions. By an order dated June 10, 1963, the City Magistrate held that the respondent had not shown the purpose of the new constructions nor had he furnished the date of commencement of the work as also the details of the amount already spent and to be spent on the said constructions. He was accordingly convicted under S.37 read with S.67 of the Act. The respondent moved the High Court on the revisional side.

Court's reasoning:
6. It was quite clear that the respondent was not being prosecuted for failure to obtain permission from the Charity Commissioner in the matter of investment of funds but the case for the prosecution as urged by the Assistant Government Pleader before the High Court, was that in the letter dated March 22, 1962, the Charity Commissioner had called for a "statement" or report regarding certain construction work whch was being carried on by the respondent in his capacity as a trustee and since the same had not been compiled with the respondent had been rightly convicted. The High Court was of the view that the words used in Cl. (c) of S. 37 (1) namely, return, statement, account or report have to be interpreted or construed with reference to the other provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder where these words had been employed or used. As regards the word "statement" reference was made to Rules 17,22 and 23. Similarly the word "report" was mentioned in Ss.34, 37 and 38. It was finally held that the Charity Commissioner had not called for any "statement" or "report" but for particulars and detailed information regarding the various items set out in his letter which he was not empowered to do10. In the present case in the High Court it was argued on behalf of the State that the enquiries which were made by means of the letter in question would fall within the meaning of either statement" or "report". Counsel before us has not been able to show how any of the enquiries made would be covered by the word "report" particularly with reference to the sections in which it appears.It is abundantly clear from the context in which this word has been used in Section 37 (1) (c) that it can have reference only to a formal report or some such report as the trustee may be required to make under the provisions of the Act or the rules, if any, framed under S.84 (1) (b) which reads "form in which the trustee has to make a report regarding the change under Section 22".Similary the word "statement" has been employed in a number of provisions of the Act and the rules which have been referred to in detail and it would seem that this word appearing in Section 37 (1) (c) has to be construed with reference to them. It is difficult to impute to the legislature the intention of using the word "statement" in its widest connotation so as to take in the answering of all enquiries and giving of all kinds of information. It is significant that in Section 37 (1) (c) the words "other information" are not to be found in the same way as they are to be found in Section 27 of the Madras Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act 1951. It is also noteworthy that the language analogous to that employed in the English Charitable Trusts Act in Sections 10 and 12 has not been employed in Section 37 (1) (c) of the Act. There, in Section 10, the words used are "accounts and statements" and in Section 14 "accounts or statement but in addition answers have to be returned to any questions or enquiries and the refusal to do so is punishable with contempt of court.In the Act itself the legislature was fully aware of the true import of the word "information" as is clear from S.56 (2) (h) and Rule 18. It is difficult, therefore, to equate the word "statement" as used in Section 37 (1) (c) with the word "information" or answering of enquiries etc. which would have a much wider sweep than the word "statement" when considered from the joint of view of statutory provisions and the rules in which it appears11. In view of the above discussion it is difficult to hold that any of the items mentioned in the letter dated March 22, 1962 fall within the meaning of the words "report" or "statement.The enquiries which have been made can only involve the calling of information on various matters mentioned in the letter which could hardly be said to fall within the aforesaid expressions used in S. 37 (1) (c).