The Hindu : Business : SC declines to stay trial of Lodha

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Feb 04, 2006

Business

Business

SC declines to stay trial of Lodha

Legal Correspondent

The question of trust should be determined on the basis of evidence

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed special leave petitions against a Calcutta High Court order declining to stay the trial of R. S. Lodha and others for allegedly forging the will of the late Priyamvada Birla.

A Bench comprising Justice B. P. Singh and Justice S.H. Kapadia held that "it is too premature to discharge the accused by holding that there was no evidence against them and hence the process cannot be quashed at this stage."

Rajinder Pansari, an associate of the Birlas, had filed a criminal case in a Kolkata court against Mr. Lodha, V. Gaurishankar, S. N. Prasad and S. K. Daga, accusing them of having committed a fraud by drafting Priyamvada Birla's Will in Lodha's favour. Mr. Prasad filed a revision petition in the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings but this was rejected. Both Mr. Prasad and advocate, Gaurishankar filed special leave petitions in the apex court seeking to quash the High Court order and stay of all further proceedings pending before the trial court.

Rejecting their plea, the Bench pointed out that this was a criminal complaint filed under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code — misuse of authority as administrator of property, abuse of position and grabbing property.

It said the question of trust should be determined on the basis of the evidence to be produced by the parties before the trial court and the prosecution could not be denied an opportunity to prove its case by producing cogent evidence.

The Judges pointed out that in the criminal trial very few prosecution witnesses had been examined and other witnesses were still to be examined. Further, the language of the Will also would have to be examined by the court concerned. The Bench, however, made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the case at this stage.

The petitioners contended that the High Court had erroneously rejected the revision petitions in the case challenging the proceedings before the trial court. They said that no criminal case had been made out against the four accused because the probate proceedings were still pending. They maintained that there was no criminal breach of trust as alleged in the complaint.

On behalf of the Birlas, it was argued that the Lodha camp had not clearly explained what was the Deed by which Priyamvada Birla had revoked the Will.

The offence of criminal breach of trust was clearly made out in this case as the accused had induced Priyamvada Birla to revoke the five trusts before making a Will in favour of Mr. Lodha.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail