Skip to content


In Re: K.V. Lakshmana Rao and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Mad134
AppellantIn Re: K.V. Lakshmana Rao and anr.
Excerpt:
- - the second petitioner recommended p......recommended p.w. 8 who had passed the book-keeping lower grade examination and the rough cash book and ledger were written by him from the share applications, vouchers and information furnished by accused 1. the second petitioner merely supervised his work and there is no warrant for holding that he brought into existence minutes of meeting not held and materials which did not exist. further, the second petitioner was not before the court and it was rightly conceded that the remarks made against him in para. 34 of the judgment should be expunged.2. the first petitioner was employed on 17th may 1934 to prepare the fair cash book and ledger to be submitted to the auditors, and the rough cash book, ledger and records specified in ex. ss 1, were furnished to him. the preparation of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. This is an application to expunge the remarks made against the petitioners by the Sessions Judge of Bellary in his judgment in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1938 and the facts are correctly stated in the affidavits filed in support of the application. The petitioners are Registered Accountants and Auditors practising at Banglore and Bellary respectively, and they had no concern with the formation or incorporation of the Hospet Sugar Mills by the accused. The company commenced business on a certificate granted on 14th November 1933 and the statutory meeting had to be held within six months from that date. A statutory report certified by the Auditor of the Company had to be placed before the meeting and the accounts had to be submitted for their audit. The accounts were not maintained in proper book form and accused 1 approached the second petitioner in January 1934 to recommend somebody to write-up the accounts. The second petitioner recommended P.W. 8 who had passed the Book-Keeping Lower Grade Examination and the rough cash book and ledger were written by him from the share applications, vouchers and information furnished by accused 1. The second petitioner merely supervised his work and there is no warrant for holding that he brought into existence minutes of meeting not held and materials which did not exist. Further, the second petitioner was not before the Court and it was rightly conceded that the remarks made against him in para. 34 of the judgment should be expunged.

2. The first petitioner was employed on 17th May 1934 to prepare the fair cash book and ledger to be submitted to the Auditors, and the rough cash book, ledger and records specified in Ex. SS 1, were furnished to him. The preparation of fair books is admitted to be permissible, and Ex. SS 2, the telegram of 21st May 1934, was sent by accused 1 in reply to Ex. SS 10, the letter of the first petitioner of 20th May 1934, that it would take some time to prepare the fair cash book and ledger in proper form. The fair cash book and ledger were prepared subsequently from the materials furnished to the first petitioner and they were not impugned except as to the alleged collection of Rs. 50,500 towards allotment and share money and payment of Rupees 59,000 to Thakore and Company. The share applications and other records furnished to the first petitioner show collection of Rs. 50,000 towards share money, and the payment of Rs. 59,000 is found in the rough cash book. It was not borne out by invoices or receipt of goods, and the first petitioner pointed out in Ex. SS 3 his letter of 9th June 1934 that in the absence of invoices and receipt of goods the payment would have to be shown as a personal debit to the party. So he did what he should as an accountant, and it was not suggested to him that the receipts produced by accused 1 in 1935 were prepared at his instance. It was not put to him that he had any hand in the preparation of the rough books or minutes of the meeting, and the remarks in paras. 19 and 34 of the judgment were made without affording any opportunity to him to offer his explanation. The petition is therefore allowed and the remarks made against the petitioners in paras. 19 and 34 are expunged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //