TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, the convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur. The appellant took the matter in revision to the Madras High Court but the revision application was dismissed. The appellant was the proprietor of a firm in Bombay known as Jawarmal Gulab Chand . He advertised that people could invest capital in cotton, oil-seeds and other commodities and that J. G. Market reports issued by him could help them in the matter. P.W. 2, a whole-sale merchant dealing in cotton seed, ground nut cakes etc. at Kumbakonam bacame a subscriber to the reports. P.W. 2 asked the appellant for his business terms. The appellant sent him Ex. P-30 wherein he stated that he undertook export, import, ready and forward business in various commodities in accordance with Pucca Adatia system and according to the usual practice and usage of the various associations concerned. Neither the appellant nor his firm was a member of any recognised association within the meaning of the Act. P.W. 2 placed orders with the appellant and correspondence and statements of accounts were exchanged between the appellant and P.W. 2 who paid a sum of ₹ 12,000/- as margin. Subsequent to the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the appellant in obtaining the property and in Ex. P-34(a) the appellant stated something which was not true and concealed from P. W. 2 the fact that he was not a member or any recognised association and that he was not entitled to carry A on the forward contract business. It is clear that P. W. 2 would not have parted with the sum of ₹ 12,000/- but for the inducement contained in Ex. P-34 and the representation of the appellant that he could lawfully carry on forward contract business. It was then submitted on behalf of the appellant that the forward contract in the present case was a wagering contract and fell outside the purview of the Act and the provisions of s. 15 of that Act were therefore not attracted to this case. In our opinion, there is no justification for this argument. Before setting out the statutory provisions it is desirable to indicate briefly the economic implications of forward trading in commodities, the need for the regulation of such trading and the mischief which the Act was intended to remedy. The expert committee to which the Bill which became the Act was referred, explained in their r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce therefor, either immediately or within such period not exceeding eleven days after the date of the contract. The statute therefore makes a distinction between ready delivery contracts and forward contracts . Forward contracts are again divided into two categories 'specific delivery contracts' and 'non-transferable specific delivery contracts'. 'Specific delivery contracts' mean forward contracts which provide for actual delivery of specific goods at the price fixed during specified future period. 'Non-transferable specific delivery contracts' are specific delivery contracts the rights or liabilities under which are not transferable. Section 15 of the Act confers power on the Government to issue notifications declaring illegal forward contracts with reference to such goods or class of goods and in such areas as may be specified. Section 15 states 15. (1) The Central Government may by noti- fication in the Official Gazette, declare this section to apply to such goods or class of goods and in such areas as may be specified in the notification, and thereupon, subject to the provisions contained in section 18, every forward contract for the sale or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on behalf of the appellant that the contracts in this case were not really meant for delivery of goods but were speculative in character. It was contended that to a contract of this description the Act has no application. Mr. Naunit Lal argued that the words of s. 2(c) must be literally construed and must be taken to cover only those contracts in which the parties intended actual delivery of goods at a future date. In our opinion, the interpretation for which Mr. Naunit Lal contends is against the whole scheme and purpose of the Act. If the expression forward contracts in s. 2(c) is not construed so as to include spe- culative contracts which ostensibly are for delivery of goods the provisions of the Act would be rendered nugatory. It is a sound rule of interpretation that a statute should be so construed as to prevent the mischief and to advance remedy according to the true intention of the makers of the statute. In construing therefore s. 2(c) of the Act and in determining its true scope it is permissible to have regard to all such factors as can legitimately be taken into account in ascertaining the intention of the legislature, such as the history of the statute, the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge the credit of the upcountry constituent to the Bombay merchant and there is no privity of contract as between the upcountry constituent and the Bombay merchant. The pucca adatia is entitled to substitute his own goods towards the contract made for the principal and buy the principal's goods on his personal accounts. In other words, the pucca adatia is not the agent of his constituent but he is acting as a principal as regards his constituent and not as a disinterested middleman to bring two principals together. The legal position has been explained by the Bombay High Court in Bhagwandas A Tarotamdas v. Kanji Deoji((1) I.L.R. 30 Bom. 205) and affirmed by the Judicial Committee in Bhagwandas Parasram v. Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji(. (2) 45 I.A. 29. ). In the present case, therefore, the appellant was acting as principal to principal, so far as P. W. 2 was concerned and the contracts are hit by the provisions of s. 15 of the Act. We pass on to consider the next contention of the appellant that there was a breach of s. 361, Criminal Procedure Code which states: 361. (1) Whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and he is presentin person, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
