Case Note & Summary
This appeal by the State of Gujarat arose from an acquittal by the High Court in a criminal prosecution of a trustee under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The respondent was a trustee of a public trust. Certain constructions were undertaken using trust funds without prior permission of the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner sent a letter to the respondent asking him to furnish information regarding the purpose of the constructions, when they were started, the amount spent and to be spent, the income expected, and details and particulars of the contracts. The respondent failed to comply with the notice. He was subsequently prosecuted under Sections 37 and 67 of the Act. The trial Magistrate convicted the respondent. On revision, the High Court acquitted him, holding that the Charity Commissioner had no power to call for the information sought. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the request for information constituted a demand for a 'statement' or 'report' within the meaning of Section 37(1)(c). The State argued that the request fell within the Charity Commissioner's powers and non-compliance was an offence. The respondent contended that the information sought did not amount to a 'report' or 'statement' as intended by the statute. The Supreme Court analysed the language of Section 37(1)(c) and observed that the items mentioned in the Charity Commissioner's letter only involved calling for 'information' on various matters. The Court held that the words 'report' and 'statement' in the context of the Act refer to formal reports or statements which a trustee may be required to make under the provisions of the Act or any rules framed thereunder. The Court concluded that the Charity Commissioner was not empowered to call for such general information, and therefore the respondent's failure to comply did not constitute an offence under Section 67. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Interpretation of Statutes - Meaning of 'Statement' and 'Report' - Demand for Information Not Authorized - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Section 37(1)(c) - The Charity Commissioner wrote to a trustee of a public trust seeking information about certain constructions made with trust funds, including purpose, timing, expenditure, income, and contract details. The trustee failed to comply and was prosecuted under Sections 37 and 67. Held that the items mentioned only involved calling for 'information' on various matters and did not fall within the meaning of 'report' or 'statement' as used in Section 37(1)(c). From the context, the word 'report' refers only to a formal report which a trustee may be required to make under the provisions of the Act or the rules, and similarly for 'statement'. The Charity Commissioner is not empowered to call for such general information; therefore, the trustee could not be convicted for non-compliance. (Paras Not available)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Charity Commissioner's request for information regarding certain constructions from a trustee amounted to calling for a 'statement' or 'report' under Section 37(1)(c) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and whether failure to provide such information constituted an offence under Section 67.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's acquittal. The Court held that the items mentioned in the Charity Commissioner's letter only involved calling for 'information' on various matters and did not fall within the meaning of 'report' or 'statement' used in Section 37(1)(c). The words 'report' and 'statement' in that context refer to formal reports or statements required under the Act or rules. Consequently, the Charity Commissioner was not empowered to call for such information, and the respondent could not be prosecuted under Section 67.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'statement' and 'report' in Section 37(1)(c) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- limited to formal reports or statements required under the Act or rules
- general requests for information do not fall within the provision
- non-compliance with such unauthorized requests does not constitute an offence under Section 67
