KAILASH CHANDRA MAHESH KUMAR AND ATMARAM AGARWALLA Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Kailash Chandra Mahesh Kumar And Atmaram Agarwalla
The State Of Orissa
Click here to view full judgement.
K.B. Panda, J. -
(1.) THE Firm M/s. Kailash Chandra Mahesh Kumar (Petitioner -1) and Atmaram Agarwalla (Petitioner -2) have preferred this revision against their conviction under Section 20(e) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (Act 74/52), hereinafter referred to as the Act, wherein each is sentenced to pay a consolidated fine of Rs. 2000/ -, or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, while dismissing the same, has recommended enhancement of sentence.
(2.) INITIALLY prosecution was launched against the present Petitioners along with Raghunath Rai Agarwalla, partner of the Petitioner -Firm. The trial Court while acquitting Raghunath, held him jointly and severally liable to pay the fine awarded against Petitioner -1, or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Raghunath did riot prefer any appeal. Petitioner -2 is the manager of the Petitioner -firm. The allegation against the Petitioners is that they had entered into Forward Contracts (Exts. 8/1 8/2 and 8/3) prohibited under the Act with two Firms, namely, M/s. Sitaram Bajranglal and M/s, Mahabir Stores in respect of several tins of groundnut oil, which came to light in consequence of a surprise raid.
On 1 -2 -1967 the Dy. Supdt. of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack, Sri S.N. Das (p.w. 1) reported to the S.P. Vigilance. Cuttack, that he learnt confidentially that ' the Petitioner -firm and many other Firms in Malgodown at Cuttack were doing forward trading in groundnut oil prohibited under the Act. The S.P. in his turn, directed Inspector Sri H. Rasid (p.w. 7) to take up investigation treating the report of p.w. 1 as F.I.R. p.w. 7 drew up formal F.I.R. (Ext. 1) and deputed Sri B.K. Ghosh, S.I. Vigilance (p.w. 8) to search the premises of the Petitioner -Firm. It was done and certain documents and khatas were seized of which the material book is souda bahi (Ext. 8). Ext. 8 was sent to Expert for examination and on receipt of the report of the Forward Markets Commission, charge -sheet was submitted against the two Petitioners and Raghunath Rai Agarwalla under Section 20(e) and 21(a) and (c) of the Act ending in the conviction of the Petitioners as aforesaid.
(3.) PETITIONER -2 on his behalf and on behalf of Petitioner -1 while generally pleading not guilty stated in his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure that he had not done any illegal transactions. Accused Raghunath Rai stated that at the relevant time he was not looking after the business.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.