FilmIndia (1945)

Barua Giues Euidence In Fraud Case! Interesting Experience For A Fiim Director ! Mr. Pramathesh Chandra Barua, a film producer and zamindar, was examined as a witness in the case in which Mr. S. K. Ghose, I.C.S., and 22 others are being prosecuted before the Second Special Tribunal at Alipur on a charge of conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of over Rs. 76,00,000 belonging to the Government of India. Examined by the Advocate General, Mr. Barua stated that his father died in 1942. He and his two brothers were at present owners of their zamindary at Gouripore, Assam. The gross income of the zamindary was about Rs. 5 lakhs and the net income, af'er paving the debts, was about Rs. 1 lakh. Witness' income from the film business varied from Rs. 1^.000 to Rs. 20.ooo| a vear. His Calcutta address was 14, Ballygunge Circular Road. Witness knew Mr. S. K. Ghose for about 4 years. Mr. Ghose's father-inlaw was Dewan of their estate. Witness had never business transactions with Mr. Ghose. He had never at any time a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs of his own, nor did he ever jointly own such an amount with his two sister?, Nihar and Nilima. To his knowledge, his sisters never possessed a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. STORY OF Rs. 30 LAKHS In lune, 1944, Mr. Ghose went to witness' house and told him that he was working for Government in certain war jobs and wanted witness to heln him. He said that for purposes of me work he had certain sums of money even to h;m bv the British War Cabinet. He mentioned the amount which he had with him as Rs. 30 lakhs and added that this monev had nothing to do with the Government of India. Because of the secret nature of the work he could not divulge to the income-tax neonle that he was in possession of mis amount. As witness w^s himself a rivic guard. Mr. Ghose suggested that he (witness') would help him by pretending to be the owner of this monev. As an T. C. S. officer he (Mr. Ghose wa: not supposed to have so much money, and if witness helped him, the income-tax people would not ask him questions and he would not have to divulge the secret nature of the war work. He told him that he (witness) should give him certain letters intimating that he (Mr. Ghose) was holding the money on his behalf. Mr. Ghose further told him some of the money was in cash while the rest had been invested in property. HOW LETTERS WERE DRAFTED Witness wanted to consult his solicitors but Mr. Ghose told him that Director P. C. Barua says he never had 30 lakhs. the nature of the work was so secret that he should not consult anybody. About the third week of July, 1944, Mr. Ghose saw h.'m at his house and brought certain drafts of letters that witness was to write to him. Shown a draft, witness said that the corrections were in Mr. Ghose's handwriting and were made in witness' house. Witness was asked to write as per draft and did so without bothering about the contents. Witness wrote 23 letters purporting to have been written on various dates from June, 1943 to July, 1944. All the letters were written by witness at two sittings. Mr. Ghose suggested die dates and was present when the letters were written. The let'ers showed that witness was sending different sums of money on different dates on behalf of himself or his sisters. He did not pav a single pie to Mr. Ghose. As Mr. Ghose suggested that the use of different kinds of paper would make the matter mere realistic, some letters were written on papers with witness' letter-head while others were written on plain paper pads. Mr. Ghose also suggested the use of different kinds of inks so that the letters would give the imnression that thev were written on different dates. Two days later. Mr. Ghose gave him ix letters, which were in his handwriting, purporting to be renlies to witness' letters. Witness kept these letters and also the draft letter given by Mr. Ghose in his iron safe. [ STATEMENT BEFORE POLICE In August, 1944, witness went to Bombay and slaved with his frend Lt. A. K. Mukheriee, who was also a relation of Mr. Ghose. On receini of two telegrams from Calcutta witness learnt that his house had been sean-hed by the police. He suspected that \\\e »"irh might be in connection with the letters he had given to Mr. Ghose. He discussed the matter with Lt. Mukheriee and later consulted Mr. P. M. Kanga, a Bombav Solicitor. He told Mr. Kanga all about those letters. Mr. Kanga said that he had done a wrong thing and advised him to tell everything to the police. On August 16, Inspector P. Ghoshal of the Calcutta Police saw witness at Bombay. Witness was taken to a Bombay police officer to whom he made a statement. He also asked Mr. Kanga to tell the police what he (witness) had told him a few days ago. Witness had no objection to Mr. Kanga telling the court what he (witness) had told him or what advice Mr. Kanga had given him. A few days later witness returned to Calcutta. Later, the police came and took away some letters and other documents from his iron safe. The hearing was adjourned to a later date. 64