Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.B.MEHTA
CHANDULAL DAHYABHAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 385 of 1960
Decided On : 02/27/1961
Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 - Section 35 – Revision – Conviction - Contravention of provisions of of Bombay Public Trusts Act in that he failed to invest trust funds lying with him in authorized investments - Actual conviction is provisions of said Act - Facts leading to this offence are petitioner is sole trustee of Trust which is registered said Act - Object of Trust is to feed birds with food-grains in said - It appears that this Trust is old and there is no written instrument of Trust - It was alleged that in - Was the cash balance of this Trust and it was invested in firm of petitioner bearing interest - After inquiries it was found by Deputy Charity Commissioner that this amount was lying uninvited in contravention of said Act which says as follows Where trust property consists of money and cannot be applied immediately or at any early date to purposes of public trust the trustee shall be bound notwithstanding any direction contained in instrument of the trust to deposit the money in any Schedule Bank as defined in the Reserve Bank of India - Held, Before this Court only defence that has been taken is that petitioner is not guilty of an offence - Act on ground that it is contended that that comes into operation provided the trust monies could not be applied immediately or at any early date to purposes of the public trust - It is further contended in this connection that in pursuance of notice given by Charity Commissioner petitioner had applied to directions for application of this trust fund and learned District Judge passed his order - Petitioner says that till District Judge was passed he had kept funds with him in order to enable him to act according directions given by District Judge - It is further contended that therefore it could not be said that monies remained with him such that they could not be either applied immediately or at any early date to purposes of public trust - It is further contended that it was in this situation that investment continued with his firm and that before District Judge passed his order and before petitioner had time to act according to directions of District notice to prosecute him was given sanction to prosecute was given and that actual complaint was filed - It is clear from dates which are given above that complaint was filed while District Judges order giving directions for application of this trust fund was passed - Therefore order of District Judge giving directions was in point of time after complaint was already filed - It is therefore contended that in these circumstances petitioner has committed no offence for on date on which the complaint was filed his application before District Judge was pending and District Judge had not passed any final orders - It appears to me that there is some force in contention advanced on behalf of defence for when Charity Commissioner has given statutory direction to petitioner to apply to District Judge and when petitioner had himself in pursuance of this notice applied to District Judge seeking for directions for application of trust monies petitioner was certainly entitled to wait and hold the monies in his hands till final order of District Judge giving him directions for application of trust monies was passed for hold be ready to apply trust monies in accordance with directions of District Judge and that is what seems to have done in this case - Oder accordingly
( 1 ) THE petitioner has come in revision against the order of the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad by which a conviction and a fine of Rs. 100/inflicted on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Fourth Court Ahmedabad was confirmed for contravention of the provisions of sec. 35 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 in that he failed to invest the trust funds lying with him in authorized investments. The actual conviction is under the provisions of sec. 66 of the said Act. The facts leading to this offence are that the petitioner is the sole trustee of the Lunsawada Moti-pole Panch Parabadi Trust which is registered under the said Act. The object of the Trust is to feed birds with food-grains in the said Moti pole. It appears that this Trust is about 200 years old and there is no written instrument of Trust. It was alleged that in S. Y. 2013 (about 1957) a sum of Rs. 5901-45 Ps. was the cash balance of this Trust and it was invested in the firm of the petitioner bearing interest at the rate of 4 1/2 % per annum. After inquiries it was found by the Deputy Charity Commissioner that this amount was lying uninvested in contravention of sec. 35 of the said Act which says as follows : (1) Where the trust property consists of money and cannot be applied immediately or at any early date to the purposes of the public trust the trustee shall be bound notwithstanding any direction contained in the instrument of the trust to deposit the money in any Schedule Bank as defined in the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 in the Postal Savings Bank or in a Co-operative Bank approved by the State Government for the purpose or to invest it in public securities. Provided that such money may be invested in the first mortgage of immovable property situate in any part of India if the property is not leasehold for a term of years and the value of the property exceeds by one-half the mortgage money. Provided further that the Charity Commissioner may by general or special order permit the trustee of any public trust or classes of such trust to invest the money in any other manner.
( 2 ) NOTHING in sub-sec. (1) shall affect any investment or deposit already made before the coming into force of the Bombay Public Trusts (Amendment) Act 1954 in accordance with a direction contained in the instrument of the trust:provided that any interest or dividend received or accruing from such investment or deposit on or after the coming into force of a said Act or any sum realized on the maturity of the said investment or deposit shall be applied or invested in the manner prescribed in sub-section (1 ).
( 3 ) THIS section says that in the circumstances mentioned therein viz. that where the property consists of money and where it could not be applied immediately or at any early date to the purposes of the public trust the trustee shall be bound to invest the surplus amount in authorized investments as mentioned in the said Act. An inquiry was made by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and it was found as stated above that an amount of Rs. 5901 Ps. was lying uninvested and it was not necessary to be kept for an immediate application or an application at an early date for the purpose of the trust. The petitioner was therefore asked by the Charity Commissioner to invest the said cash amount in accordance with the provisions of sec. 35 (1) of the said Act. The petitioner thereafter from time to time asked for time to comply with the provisions of sec. 35 (1) of the Act. It appears that thereafter on the 6th of May 1958 a notice was issued by the Charity Commissioner to the petitioner under sec. 55 of the Act asking the petitioner to obtain directions of the District Judge for the utilization of the said Trust Fund half the amount food-grains for birds and half cypress for secular education. The petitioner accordingly applied to the learned District Judge on 2/08/1958 and the learned District Judge by his order dated 23/10/1959 directed the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.