SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Cal) 339

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
J. N. HORE, J.
ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK P.I.C. AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
SHIPPING AND CLEARING (AGENTS) PRIVATE LTD. AND ANOTHER
Criminal Revision No. 454 of 1991,
Decided On : 15 -7 -1991

The relationship between a bank and its customer is ordinarily that of debtor and creditor, and not trustee and beneficiary.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION - BANKING - BREACH OF TRUST - JURISDICTION - OFFENCES - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BANKER AND CUSTOMER - TRUSTEE AND BENEFICIARY - CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST - NEGLIGENCE - S. 177, 409, 420, 465, 500, INDIAN PENAL CODE - S. 31, NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, a bank and its manager, were accused of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy for honoring a cheque despite instructions from the complainant company to close its account. The complainant alleged that the bank transferred funds from the complainant's account to the account of another company without authorization, causing a wrongful loss to the complainant.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offenses as they were committed outside their territorial jurisdiction. The court also found that the relationship between a bank and its customer is ordinarily that of debtor and creditor, and not trustee and beneficiary. The court further held that the allegations in the complaint did not constitute the ingredients of the offenses of cheating or conspiracy.

Issues: 1. Whether the lower courts had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offenses? 2. Whether the relationship between a bank and its customer is that of trustee and beneficiary? 3. Whether the allegations in the complaint constituted the ingredients of the offenses of cheating or conspiracy?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offenses as they were committed outside their territorial jurisdiction, relying on Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The court held that the relationship between a bank and its customer is ordinarily that of debtor and creditor, and not trustee and beneficiary, relying on case law and legal principles. 3. The court held that the allegations in the complaint did not constitute the ingredients of the offenses of cheating or conspiracy, as there was no evidence of criminal intent or conspiracy.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application and quashed the impugned proceeding against the petitioners.

JUDGEMENT

1. This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and Ss, 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal proceeding being Case No. C11 of 1991 in the 9th Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore u/Ss. 120B, 409, 420, 465 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Petitioner No. 1 ANZ Grindlays Bank PIC having a branch office at 10, Sansad Marg, New Delhi represented by petitioner No. 2 S. C. Bhargava, formerly Assistant Manager and now Manager, Area Administration, Northern India are accused Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. On 3-1-91 the complainant-opposite party Shipping and Clearing (Agents) Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as S.C.A.L.) filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial agistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas against the petitioners and some other persons alleging commission of offences u/Ss. 120B, 409, 410, 465 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegations in the petition of complaint may briefly be stated thus: Complainant S.C.A.L. has a Branch Office at New Delhi situated at B-27 Sagar Apartments, 6 Tilak Marg. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are Directors of accused No. 3 which is an existing company carrying on business in transportation, shifting, clearing and air- Cargo operations. By virtue of an agreement accused Nos. 1 and 2 as Directors of accused No. 3 took over the charge of business of the S.C.A.L.'s Office at New Delhi with effect from 1st April, 1986 for a term of 3 years S. C. A. L. maintained current account No. O/C BM-8174900 with the accused No. 4 A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank at its Branch at 10, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and accused No. 5 was the Assistant Manager of the Bank at the relevant time. By virtue of the agreement between the accused No. 3 and the complainant accused Nos. 1 and 2 being Directors of accused No. 3 had been operating the said account of the complainant. The proposal for renewal of the agreement was rejected by the complainant but a grace period of 8 months was allowed to settle the outstanding matters ending on 30th June, 1989. Accused No. 3 also maintained an account with the accused No. 4 Bank operating through accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were asked to draw upto-date accounts and to close all bank accounts as on 30-6-89. But accused Nos. 1 and 2 and 6 with mala fide intention failed to close the said account with the accused No. 4 Bank. The Managing Director of the complainant company came to learn on 11th November, 1989, that accused No. 1 collected a cheque from a customer of the complainant and arranged to syphon the proceeds to the credit of accused No. 3 using the service of accused No. 4 Bank. Thereafter the complainant sent a letter and mandate to the accused No. 4 to close the complainant's account which was received by accused No. 4 on 15-11-89. But the accused No. 4 Bank transferred a sum of Rs. 52,572.30 on 15-11-89 from the complainant's account to the account of accused No. 3 without having any authority to do so and failing to abide by the instructions of the complainant. The unauthorised transaction by accused No. 4 was further aggravated by transferring a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on 17-11-89 from the complainant's account to the account of accused No. 3. These transactions were made with the mala fide intention to cheat the complainant by committing breach of trust by the accused persons including the accused No. 4 Bank. The complainant sent lawyer's notice to the accused No. 4 calling upon it to make payment of the cumulative sum of Rs. 55,277.65 which was illegally transferred to the accused No. 3's account making a wrongful gain for the said accused and causing a wrongful loss to the complainant on 15-11-89 and 17-11-89, ignoring the instructions of the complainant. Accused No. 4 sent a reply on 18-12-89 denying negligence and liability on the part of the Bank. The accused persons have thus committed offences punishable u/ Ss. 120B, 409, 420, 465 and 500, Indian Penal Code.


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top