Criminal App. No. 192 of 1964 with Criminal Rev. case No. 355 of 1964. Case: Calcutta Ready snd Forward Market Association Vs State. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | Criminal App. No. 192 of 1964 with Criminal Rev. case No. 355 of 1964 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ajit Kumar Dutt and Prasun Chandra Ghosh, Advs. and For Respondents: Amiyalal Chatterjee, Adv. |
| Judges | N.C. Talukdar, J. |
| Issue | West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957 - Sections 2(1), 3, 4 and 29; Companies Act, 1957; Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 - Sections 2, 5, 6 and 11; Companies Act, 1956; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 17; West Bengal Jute Goods Future Ordinance, 1948 - Section 2(1); Indian Penal Code - Section 294A; ... |
| Judgement Date | August 14, 1969 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
N.C. Talukdar, J.
-
This appeal being Cr. App. No. 192 of 1964 arising out of case No. P.R. 2865 of 1958 and the connected Rule, being Cr. Rev. No. 355 of 1964, arising out of case No. P.R. 2424 of 1958, involve the same points and evidence and so they are taken up together. In the Court below also the two cases were tried together and disposed of by the same learned Magistrate. The appeal is by the company, the Calcutta Ready and Forward Market Association Ltd., represented by Gangadhar Chamaria, and is against the order dated January 17, 1964, passed by Sri M. B. Mukherjee, Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, Calcutta, convicting the company under Section 3 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957 (XXXII of 1957), and sentencing it to pay a fine of Rs. 250, in default to suffer S.I. for 12 days. The Revision case is at the instance of, the 13 directors of the said company and is against, the same order dated January 17, 1964, passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, Calcutta, convicting them under Section 3 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957, and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each, in default to suffer S.I. for 10 days each.
-
The case has had a chequered history but the facts leading on to the Appeal and the Revision may be put in a short compass. The Calcutta Ready and Forward. Market Association Ltd., which has its office and the principal place of business at 149 Cotton Street, Calcutta, is a company limited by guarantee without any share capital and registered under the Indian Companies Act on November 14, 1955. There is a board consisting of 13 directors and the Association has its printed bye-laws relating to transactions in silver bar, passed by the Board of Directors for regulating the transactions of the Association as per its articles. The prosecution case briefly is that on the receipt of certain information the Police raided the premises No. 149 Cotton Street, Calcutta, on October 29, 1958, and arrested some persons found gambling there, in contravention, of the provisions of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957. Some documents, papers, cash memos., share scrips etc. were seized and an investigation followed. Several cases were started thereafter and the facts thereof are rather involved. Case No. P.R. 2865.of 1958, out of which the present Appeal arose, is against the company, represented by Sri Gangadhar Chamaria, the president of the Association, while cases Nos. P.R. 2424-1 and P.R. 2424-11 of 1958, relating to the directors, were subsequently rolled up into one as case No. P.R. 2424 of 1958 under the direction of the High Court. The connected Rule No. 355 of 1964 arises out of this case. Another case, being case No. 2428 of 1958, was instituted against some of the directors while case No. 2423 of 1958 was still pending at the time under Section 4 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957, against some of the persons alleged to have been found gambling in the premises referred to above. Case No. 263 of 1959, which was against 19 accused persons who were found gambling at the premises, was ultimately quashed. As a result of the investigation, the accused persons as also the company were placed on trial before the learned Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, Calcutta, to answer charges under Section 3 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957 (XXXII of 1957). The defence case, inter alia, is that the accused persons are not guilty; that the Association is a company limited by guarantee and registered under the Indian Companies Act, authorised by its memorandum to, inter alia, conduct and regulate forward trading, building, stocks and shares etc. for promoting business; that the company has its own bye-laws under the articles and memorandum of association and forward trading in silver and stocks in terms of the transactions and are entered into by and between the members of the. Association, pursuant to the orders received therefor by them from third parties and/or their clients and customers; that such bye-laws have received the approval of the Central Government under Section 11 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952; that the delivery of silver is intended and is actually effected on due date; that the transactions that take place are not in the nature of wagering contract or gambling transactions in imaginary silver bars, violating any of the provisions of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957; and that the transactions conform to the provisions of a Central Act, viz. Act LXXIV of 1952, whereunder specific penalties are provided for contraventions, but no such penalty was incurred and prosecution started. Fifteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution while two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence and several documents were proved by both the parties. As a result of the trial, Sri M. B. Mukherjee, Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, Calcutta, by his order dated January 17, 1964, convicted and sentenced the company as also the directors as mentioned above. The said orders passed in the same judgment have been impugned and form the subject-matter of the present Appeal as well as the Revision.
-
Mr. Ajit Kumar Dutt, Advocate (with Mr. Prasun Chandra Ghosh, Advocate), appearing on behalf of the accused in both the cases made a nine-fold submission. The first contention of Mr. Dutt relates to procedure and refers to the fact that the learned Presidency Magistrate's refusal to grant a reasonable time to the defence for producing the witnesses on its behalf, resulted ultimately in their being not available for cross-examination before arguments were heard. Mr. Dutt in this context submitted that although the said failure was due to no fault on the part of the defence, the learned trying Magistrate, nonetheless, referred to the same in his judgment as...
To continue reading
Request your trial