JUDGMENT - Kotwal, J.

(1) This is an appeal by the State and is directed against the judgment of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, III Court, Esplanade, Bombay, acquitting the first two respondents, Firdharlal Bajaj and Tulsiprasad Khaitan of offences under Section 420 of the India Companies Act 1956. The original complainant, Nariman Fakirji Bharucha, is the third respondent in this appeal.

(2) The complainant, was employed sometime in 1941 as a Manager in New Pralhad Mills. The company commenced a provident Fund Scheme and appointed Trustees of the Provident Fund on the 1st April 1949. Thereafter, the New Pralhad Mills was sold to a company known as the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd., on 1st July 1951, and the latter Company were appointed their managing agents in 1952. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who were the accused before the trial Court are the General Manager and the Chairman of the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that consequent upon the taking over of the New Pralhad Mills by the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd., the accused, who were the principal officers of the company, became trustees of the Provident Fund of the New Pralhad Mills, which was transferred to the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd.

(3) The services of the complainant were for a time continued by the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd. On 29h May 1957, however the complainant was informed that he was dismissed from service of the New Pralhad Mills as from 31st May 1957.

(4) There is some dispute between the parties as to whether the complainant was, in fact, dismissed from service or whether his services were merely terminated. But that dispute is not really germane to the point for decision in this appeal, and we shall without prejudging the issue refer to is as a dismissal.

(5) Consequent upon his dismissal, the complainant, on 28th March 1959, addressed a letter, through his attorneys, to the Trustees of the Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., who were holding the Employees Provident Fund of the New Pralhad Mills. That letter is Ex. B. The complainant requested in that letter that he should be furnished with a statement of account of his Provident Fund Account, as the last statement which had been submitted to him, was for the financial years 1956-57. The complainants attorneys also asked the Trustees "please also give us an appointment for inspection of the securities in which the trust funds are invested by you as Trustees. Please note that if the aforesaid requisitions are not complied with as stated aforesaid, we have instructions to take immediate proceedings in the matter." This letter was signed by the complainants attorneys.

(6) On behalf of the accused and the Trustees of the Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., a reply was sent on the 18th of April, 1959 to the complainants on the 18th of April, 1959 to the complainants letter, wherein the company and the Trustees declined to give inspection as required and, on the other hand, they took the stand that "Since your client was dismissed from the service of the company on account of misconduct, he is entitled to his contribution to Provident Fund only. Under the rules, he is not at all entitled for the companys contribution." It is clear that no specific reply was given to the complainants demand for inspection of the securities in which the trust funds were invested.

(7) The complainant filed the present complaint on 22nd of April 1959. He alleged breaches on the part of the two accused, who were Trustees of the Provident Fund, under section 420 of the Indian Companies Act. He also charged the accused under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

(8) The view which the Additional Chief Presidency, Magistrate has taken is that the complainant was not dismissed from the service of the New Pralhad Mills, but that his services were merely terminated with effect from the 31st of May 1957; but in any case he had become a past employee of the company and having regard to the provisions of sections 417 to 420, and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document