Allowed

Amitbhai Padmakantbhai Vaishnav v. N.D.Ramanandi or His Successor in Office, Inspector

Gujarat HC11 Dec 2018SCR.A/3225/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special criminal application, the High Court of Gujarat quashed a criminal complaint filed under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Court held that while the complaint was not barred by limitation, it lacked basic facts and was too vague, failing to disclose a prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Complaint No. 6887 of 2013 qua the petitioners was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed with the rule made absolute.

Amitbhai Padmakantbhai Vaishnav Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

R/SCR.A/3225/2014 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3225 of 2014

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Sd/-

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4 ==	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ====================================================	No ====

¶8

AMITBHAI PADMAKANTBHAI VAISHNAV

¶9

Versus

¶10

N.D.RAMANANDI OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE, INSPECTOR

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

Appearance:

¶13

MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR YN RAVANI(718) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4

¶14

MR. MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, (2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2

¶15

RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶16

==========================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

¶18

Date : 11/12/2018

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

1.The present petition has been filed under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

R/SCR.A/3225/2014 JUDGMENT

¶23

read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to
quash and set aside the complaint being Criminal
Complaint No. 6887 of 2013 pending before the
ChiefJudicialMagistrate,Bhavnagar
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’)
for the alleged offence under section 66 and 67
of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter
referred to as 'the said Act').

¶24

2.It appears that the petitioners along with
other trustees of Gharshala Institute bearing
bearing Trust Registration No. F/39/Bhavnagar
were served with the summons issued by the trial
court on 21.10.2013 in Criminal Complaint No.
6887 of 2013 filed by the respondent No. 1 – the
Inspector, Office of Public Trust Registration.
It was alleged in the said complaint filed
against the present petitioners and others, in
total 86 accused inter alia that the said trust
was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts
Act, and the trustees had failed to report the
change in the procedure for the appointment of
trustees, within 90 days of the occurrence of
such change to the Charity Commissioner as
required under Section 22 of the said Act read
with Rule 13 of the said Rules, and thereby had
committed offence under sections 66 and 67 of
the said Act.

¶25

3.It is sought to be submitted by the learned
advocate Mr. Ravani for the petitioners that the

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

R/SCR.A/3225/2014 JUDGMENT

¶28

allegations made in the complaint do not
constitute any offence as alleged, inasmuch as
the complainant has not furnished any
particulars as to when the change had taken
place and how the offence under Section 66 or 67
of the said Act were committed. He further
submitted that the complaint was also barred
under section 468 of Cr.P.C. it having not been
filed within six months from the date of
occurrence of the alleged offence.

¶29

4.However, the learned Public Prosecutor Mr.
Mitesh Amin for the respondent No.2 submitted
that the petitioners, who were the trustees of
the said Trust, had failed to intimate the
Charity Commissioner about change made in the
method and procedure for the appointment of the
trustees, as required to be intimated under
Section 22 of the Act, and therefore, had
committed offence as alleged against them.

¶30

5.So far as the limitation contained in
Section 468 is concerned, though it is true that
it should have been filed within six months, the
alleged offences being punishable only with
fine, however, it appears that the sanction of
prosecution was granted by the Charity
Commissioner under Section 83 of the said Act
only on 06.09.2013. Hence, the time required
for obtaining the sanction would be excluded in
view of Section 470(3) of the said Code. The

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

R/SCR.A/3225/2014 JUDGMENT

¶33

complaint having been filed on 21.10.2013 after
obtaining sanction on 06.09.2013, it could not
be said that the complaint was barred by Section
468 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

6.However, from the bare reading of the
complaint, it appears that the complaint lacks
basic facts as to how the alleged offences were
committed by the petitioners, who were the
accused in the said criminal case. The
complaint is not only cryptic, but absolutely
vague as it has not been stated as to when the
change in the manner and method of appointment
of trustees had taken place, and when the
trustees were required to report about the said
change as required under Section 22 of the said
Act. Hence, there being no prima facie case
against the present petitioners, the complaint
qua the present petitioners deserves to be
quashed and set aside.

¶35

7.In that view of the matter, the Criminal
Complaint No. 6887 of 2013 qua the present
petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside.
The present petition is allowed accordingly.
Rule is made absolute.

¶36

AMAR SINGH

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Amitbhai Padmakantbhai Vaishnav v. N.D.Ramanandi or His Successor in Office, Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amitbhai Padmakantbhai Vaishnav v. N.D.Ramanandi or His Successor in Office, Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinubhai Haribhai Malavia Vs State of Gujarat

Bhimjibhai Narsibhai Malavia Vs State of Gujarat

Lakhiben Wd/O Parsottam Magan Vs State of Gujarat

Dilipkumar Ramanlal Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Harishbhai Gokuldas Gondalia Vs State of Gujarat

Jalibhai Sarsangbhai Rathwa Vs State of Gujarat