Emperor vs Durgadas Radhakisan on 5 September, 1933
In the words of Broomfield, J., in Emperor v. Durgadas 1934 Bom 48, the scheme in the case before us might be of the 'snow ball' nature but the literature of the scheme, principally the loan rules of which mention has been made above, could not be described as misleading and deceptive. All the conditions of the scheme launched by the company were set out in black and white. There was no room for misunderstanding. On a careful consideration of the scheme floated by the company of which the petitioners were the managing directors, and of the loan rules made available to the public, it is not possible to hold, in the case before us, that the petitioners were responsible for the starting and carrying through a scheme of a fraudulent nature, so as to attract the operation of the penal law against the petitioners. The scheme was a speculative one but could not be said to be dishonest. In the above view of the case, the conviction of the petitioners and the sentences passed on them cannot be affirmed. The rules are made absolute. The conviction of the petitioners and the sentences passed on them are set aside. The petitioners must be discharged from their bail bonds, and set at liberty.