The prosecution of some accused while not prosecuting others does not amount to discrimination if the accused are not similarly situated, and the search and seizure of documents without a warrant is not illegal if the offences are cognizable and the police have the power to investigate under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:
FORWARD CONTRACTS (REGULATION) ACT, 1952 - SECTION 2 (C), 2 (I), 17, 20 (E), 21 (F), 22A, 23, 251A (2) - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898 - SECTION 5 (2), 96, 98, 157, 165, 173, 251A (2), 432 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 14 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - DISCRIMINATION - COGNIZABLE OFFENCES - WARRANT - GROUNDS FOR PRESUMING OFFENCE - READY DELIVERY CONTRACTS - FORWARD CONTRACTS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY PROVISIONS - RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE - FACTUAL ANALYSIS OF TRANSACTIONS - INTENTION OF PARTIES. 1. The prosecution of petitioners for contravening the provisions of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, after the discharge of 38 other accused, does not violate the principle of equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution, as the petitioners and the discharged accused are not similarly situated. 2. The police have the discretion to collect evidence against accused persons and file chargesheets, and their decision to prosecute some accused while not prosecuting others does not amount to discrimination. 3. The search and seizure of documents during a raid on the petitioners' premises without a warrant under Section 22A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act is not illegal, as Section 5 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the investigation of cognizable offences under the provisions of the Code, and Section 23 of the Act makes the offences charged against the petitioners cognizable. 4. Section 22A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act is an enabling provision that empowers Magistrates to issue search warrants, but it does not debar the police from exercising their powers under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to search places where cognizable offences may have been committed. 5. The contention that the charges against the petitioners are groundless and should be discharged under Section 251A (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is premature, as the Court cannot conclusively determine the nature of the contracts at this stage. 6. The Court must consider the real nature of the transactions and the intention of the parties at the time of entering into the contracts to determine whether they are forward contracts or ready delivery contracts, as defined under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act. 7. The entries in the statements of accounts annexed to the reports of the Research Officer, along with all surrounding circumstances, will be considered to ascertain the true nature of the transactions.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, accused in 8 separate cases under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, challenged the order rejecting their application to discharge them and the framing of charges against them. They argued that the prosecution was discriminatory, the search and seizure of documents was illegal, and the charges were groundless.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the prosecution was not discriminatory, the search and seizure were legal, and the charges were not groundless. It dismissed the revision applications and vacated the stay granted earlier.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution of the petitioners after the discharge of 38 other accused violated the principle of equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the search and seizure of documents without a warrant under Section 22A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act was illegal? 3. Whether the charges against the petitioners were groundless and should be discharged under Section 251A (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners and the discharged accused were not similarly situated, as the police had collected evidence against the petitioners but not against the discharged accused. 2. Section 5 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the investigation of cognizable offences under the provisions of the Code, and Section 23 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act makes the offences charged against the petitioners cognizable. Therefore, the search and seizure without a warrant under Section 22A was not illegal. 3. The Court cannot conclusively determine the nature of the contracts at this stage, and the entries in the statements of accounts along with all surrounding circumstances must be considered to ascertain the true nature of the transactions.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision applications and vacated the stay granted earlier.

JUDGMENT - 1. The above 8 applications are filed by "the accused against whom 8 cases are pending In the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay.

The petitioners pray in these revision applications that the order passed on March 22, 1969 rejecting the application filed by the accused in case No. 957/P of 1968 and the charge framed by the Presidency Magistrate on March 25, 1969 against the respective accused in 8 cases should be set aside and the petitioners should be discharged. As these petitions involve common points and relate to common facts, they can be disposed of by one judgment.

2. The particulars of the charges framed against the petitioners in the 8 cases may be summarised and stated as in a tabular form as follows:--

When the charges were framed against the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and the hearing of the cases has been stayed by this Court after admitting the above revision applications filed by the accused.

3. The material common facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of these revision applications are as follows:--

On January 9, 1963, the Government of India issued a notification prohibiting forward contracts for sale or purchase of silver. On April 2, 1968 upon a complaint filed by the complainant, the Enforcement Officer of the Forward Markets Commission constituted under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Branch (Drugs Control), C. I. D. Bombay suspecting mat certain firms of bullion traders of Zaveri Bazar were conducting illegal forward trading in silver in contravention of Section 17 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 read with the aforesaid notification, raided the premises belonging to 8 firms suspected to be contravening the Act. During the raid, 47 persons including the petitioners were arrest-ed, several documents found on the premises or with the persons arrested were seized and the accused were released on bail by the police. Thereafter the documents seized were scrutinised by the officers of the Forward Markets Commission and one Pradhan designated as Research Officer sent reports to the police alleging that the documents scrutinised disclosed that the firms of the petitioners were entering into forward contracts in contravention of Section 17 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. The rest of the persons arrested on the basis of the documents seized from them had merely settled their transactions entered into by them by payment of differences. On perusal of the reports submitted by the Research Officer Pradhan and all the papers and on recording the statement of Pradhan, the police filed 8 charge-sheets against the petitioners on October 31, 1968, In the meanwhile, the police applied to the Court for extension of the period of bail of all the accused from time to time After filing the aforesaid chargesheets, on November 15, 1968, art application was made on behalf of the police to discharge 38 of the 47 accused on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to substantive any charge against them. The learned Magistrate immediately discharged the said 38 persons.

4. On March 5, 1969, the accused in criminal case No. 958/P of 1068 who are also the accused in case No. 957/P of 1968 filed an application for discharging the accused firstly on the ground that neither the prosecution nor the Court could discriminate between the 38 persons who were already discharged and the present petitioners who were all arrested in connection with the same kind of offences at the same time and place, secondly on the ground that the search and the seizure of the documents in the case were made without proper authority of search warrants under Section 22A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 and hence all proceedings consequent upon that search were illegal, and thirdly on the ground that the allegations and charges made in the chargesheets were groundless. It was also grayed in the said applicati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document