STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. RAMGOPAL GANPATRAI RUIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Raja Dhanraj Girji (complainant) was the sole proprietor of a mill called Dhanraj Mills till 1935, in which year he converted the mills Into a limited company. He was the managing agent and chairman of the board of directors till 1937. In that year he transferred the managing agency of the limited company to Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia (accused No. 1) who remained in charge of the managing agency till 1943. In 1943 accused No. 1 formed two private limited companies, viz. Ramgopal Ganpatrai & Sons, Ltd., and Ramrikhdas Balkisan & Sons, Ltd., referred to hereinafter as R. G. & Sons, Ltd., and R. B. & Sons, Ltd. R. G. & Sons, Ltd., was given the managing agency of the mills and R. B. & Sons, Ltd., was given the selling agency of the mills. The complainant was given 0-6-0 share in these two companies of R. G. & Sons, Ltd., and R. B. & Sons, Ltd., and the rest of the shares were mainly held by accused No. 1 and the members of his family. Till 1946 the complainant remained a chairman of the board of directors of the Dhanraj Mills, Ltd., and also got his 0-6-0 share in R. G. & Sons, Ltd., and R. B. & Sons, Ltd. In that year, however, it was alleged against him that he had purchased cloth worth about Rs. 200 from the mills and he was removed from the chairmanship of the board of directors by the other members of the board. After litigation in the Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court, he regained his position as a chairman of the board of directors of the mills. The State of Bombay vs. Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia (22.06.1951 -BOMHC) Page 3 of 10 y vs. Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia (22.06.1951 -BOMHC) Page 3 of 10

(2.) In the year 1947 the complainant asked accused No. 1 for the inspection of the accounts of the mills. Accused No. 1 refused inspection. In April or May of the year Chhotalal Oza, a purchase clerk for waste yarn and cotton in the mills, informed the complainant that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had committed defalcations of the funds of the mills by the device of bogus purchases and sales of cotton and bogus purchases of mill stores and had misappropriated the moneys of bearer cheques which were issued in the names of fictitious persons. After making certain enquiries the complainant filed a complaint with Crime Investigation Department, Bombay, on July 8 1947. On the same date the office of the mills was raided by the police and several books, registers, vouchers, documents, etc., were seized. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on July 18, 1947. On January 19, 1948, a charge-sheet was sent up against the accused at the conclusion of investigation. On March 31, 1948, the case was opened for the State. The matter was adjourned to the next date, namely May 1, 1948, on which date on behalf of the accused a point of procedure was raised whether the Magistrate should record evidence as in a warrant case or as in a committal enquiry. On May 6, 1948, the Magistrate passed an order, saying that having regard to the enormity of the amount involved in the case he would record evidence as in committal proceedings. Recording of evidence went on from June 1948 to December 17, 1949, at the end of which on December 17, 1949, the Magistrate framed seven charges against the accused and decided to dispose of the case himself, although the case was enquired into as a committal proceeding up to that stage.

(3.) Against the above order of the Magistrate dated December 17, 1949, the State of Bombay went in revision to the High Court. Bavdekar and Chainani JJ. who heard the application observed that in their view the case was important, not from the point of view of the importance of the accused, or the importance of the complainant or the person upon whose information the police had started investigating the case, but because of the large amounts alleged to have been defalcated. Mr. Justice Bavdekar who delivered the judgment went on to say that if the charges in regard to all the defalcations were proved, it was obvious that the defalcations being extensive, a substantive sentence of imprisonment and fine would have to be imposed, and that from that point of view the case ought to be committed to the Court of Session. Ultimately, in that revision application, the High Court itself set out the charges and sent down the case to the Magistrate for proceeding further in accordance with the law. The charge against accused No. 1 was as follows: "You, accused No. 1, Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia, being an agent of the Dhanraj Mills Ltd. and in such capacity entrusted with property, namely the amount of Es. 6,06,661-3-6 being the proceeds of the cheques Exs. J-22, J-23, J-25, H-3, H-4, J-1, J-2, J-4, J-5, J-30 to J32, J-33, J-34, J-10 to J-13, belonging to the said Mills, committed at Bombay, between the dates the August 21, 1945, and December 31, 1945, criminal breach of trust with respect to the property, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Session of the City of Greater Bombay." The State of Bombay vs. Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia (22.06.1951 -BOMHC) Page 4 of 10 y vs. Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia (22.06.1951 -BOMHC) Page 4 of 10