Skip to content


Makhan Lal Chatterjee Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in164Ind.Cas.377
AppellantMakhan Lal Chatterjee
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal trial - accused charged for cheating and breach of trust--accused, having account in bank-magistrate, if can order bank not to give money to accused--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) sections 516, 517. - .....order should not be set aside.2. the accused was charged with cheating or, alternatively, criminal breach of trust. during the investigation it appeared that the accused had an account with a bank, and the police served a stop order on the bank to prevent the accused from operating on his account.3. the magistrate modified this by making an order that rs. 75 out of the account might be paid to the petitioner for the purposes of his defence, or otherwise; but the rest of the money would be detained pending the disposal of the case.4. there seems to be no jurisdiction in the magistrate for making any such order. sections 516 and 517 of the criminal procedure code are clearly not applicable, and neither party has been able to direct our attention to any other appropriate section of the code.....
Judgment:

Lort-Williams, J.

1. In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why a certain order should not be set aside.

2. The accused was charged with cheating or, alternatively, criminal breach of trust. During the investigation it appeared that the accused had an account with a Bank, and the Police served a stop order on the Bank to prevent the accused from operating on his account.

3. The Magistrate modified this by making an order that Rs. 75 out of the account might be paid to the petitioner for the purposes of his defence, or otherwise; but the rest of the money would be detained pending the disposal of the case.

4. There seems to be no jurisdiction in the Magistrate for making any such order. Sections 516 and 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code are clearly not applicable, and neither party has been able to direct our attention to any other appropriate section of the Code dealing with matters of this kind. The position in law is that the accused had lent this money to his bankers upon the understanding that they would repay it him at any time on demand. In such circumstances it is difficult to see how any order can be made upon the Bank, nor have we been shown any section which can authorise the Court to make an order upon the accused not to ask the Bank to repay the money which he had lent to them. Further, there is nothing to show that the money in the Bank was part of the proceeds of the cheating of breach of trust. Moreover, the amount standing to the credit of the accused was much larger than the amount which, it is alleged, he had misappropriated.

5. In these circumstances, this order cannot stand and must be set aside. The Rule is made absolute.

Jack, J.

6. I agree.


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