Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. On the back of the letter there is a note -"On enquiries bank reports satisfactory, arrangements to be proposed to Local Committee." A list of properties was given com- prising nine buildings in Calcutta of a total value of Rs. 22,55,000 together with 20,000 preference shares and 50,000 ordinary shares in the Basanti Cotton Mills. That list of properties was signed by the two Mitter brothers. The deeds of mortgage and a conveyance relating to those properties have been produced in Court and it appears that on 1st April 1939, the immovable properties referred to were mortgaged to the Roys of Hatkhola for a sum of Rs. 9,25,000 and that on 26th April 1939, the same properties were sold as from 1st April 1939, to the Roys of Hatkhola for Rs. 12,15,000. It would appear therefore that the value of the properties apart from the shares of the two Mitters was about rs. 3 to 4 lacs. The prosecution have thrown doubt upon the letter of 1st April 1939 alleging that it was writ-ten by Mitter to Amin at the latter's request when Mitter, as the figures quoted before show, had induced Amin to give him an overdraft of several lacs. Whatever the value of the Darbhanga agreement, the immovable properties of the Mitters and the shares in the Basanti Cotton Mills, none of them was ever pledged with the bank in respect of the overdrafts. P. W. 57 S.C. Gupta, in his evidence stated that he prepared and sent to the head office of the bank every month a statement of all overdraft accounts and also that he sent every week to the head office a statement of all irregular accounts: by irregular accounts he apparently meant those where the over-drafts exceeded the value of the securities deposited against them.

15. In the afternoon of the same day, 26th May 1939, at about 2-30 P. M. Mitter made a lodgment of another Government Promissory Note for Rs. 25,000-1842-43 NO. CA001013. On this occasion, Amin again sent for Trilokekar into his room where he found Mitter. Amin handed the note over with a lodgment memo in Amin's handwriting and gave the same instructions as in the morning. Trilokekar took the Government Promissory Note and the memo to the Securities Department and caused a clerk to make an entry of the note in the Inward Register. The entry had written opposite to it "Notes held by manager" and Amin initialled it in blue pencil. Some time later, Trilokekar took the note back to Amin's room where Mitter still was and handed it over to Amin. The particulars of this last note were duly entered in the Security Inward Register, the Overdraft Register and the Lodgment Register. The amount of all these notes to the total face value of rupees one lac was duly brought on to the valuation sheets as would appear from the sanction book (p. 43). On the same day 26th May 1939, Amin himself sanctioned the payment of two cheques (1) for Rs. 67,829 and (2) for Rs. 65,825 which brought the overdraft in Mitter's account up to Rs. 2,40,868. In the 'Remarks' column of the sanction book Amin, whose initials appear in the Initials column, took the four notes of the total face value of rupees one lac paid in that day into account as cover in the following way. Rupees one lac at market value of Rs. 96 less 10 per cent.=Rs. 86,400. This sum of Rs. 86,400 is the advance value appearing in sanction book when the two cheques referred to were passed. Thus Amin was giving the overdraft on a security of four G. P. Notes registered as pledged with the bank that day. No more securities were paid in until 30th May. On 29th May it appears from the sanction book "Remarks" column that Rs. 86,400 was still the advance value for Mitter.

28. The defence which the two accused have set up separately is that they have committed no offence at all; that Amin on his part who was charged with the management of the bank was given certain powers to deal with securities in the course of his management and that what he did he did in the ordinary course of business for the benefit of the bank in Order to attract and keep Mitter who was a valuable customer. Mitter on his part contends that all he has done has been to ask Amin for overdrafts for the purposes of his business and accept whatever benefits Amin was prepared to give him as a good customer. Further, it is pointed out by Amin that there is no evidence anywhere that he has profited in any way by the matters complained of, and by Mitter it is pointed out that there is no evidence against him that he has paid Amin anything to induce him to do what he did. Both the appellants in their written statement allege that the securities were handed back to Mitter by Amin under a pre-arranged agreement and that in the places of the several G. P. Notes deposited, notes of equal value were deposited the same day by Mitter, and were in the sealed covers on 9th June. (After going through the evidence their Lordships rejected the defence story that notes of equal value were substituted in the covers when notes originally placed were returned by Amin to Mitter and proceeded.) It is clear that by reason of Amin returning the securities in question to Mitter the bank lost the whole value of those securities to which they were entitled under the terms of the letters of pledge dated 23rd April 1938, and 2nd June 1939.