- (1.) THE three petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C. C. 8080/95 before the learned Magistrate who have sought for quashing of entire criminal proceedings therein against them initiated on the private complaint of respondent presented before the learned Magistrate under Sec. 200, Cr. P. C. alleging commission of offences punishable under Secs. 405, 415 and 420 of I. P. C. They have also challenged the order dated 5-4-1995 of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Secs. 406 and 420, IPC against them on the said complaint and directing issue of process to them.
(2.) THE petitioners are hereinafter referred to as 'a1', 'a2' and 'a3' and the respondent is henceforth called the 'complainant'.
(3.) A few facts emerging from the material on record giving rise to this petition are as under : The complainant and accused are involved in the trade of liquor. Under Ex. P2 contract dated 17-6-1992 entered into between them it was agreed by A1 that he shall manufacture and sell for the complainant Indian Made Foreign Liquor ('imfl' for short) under the brand and trademark of the complainant concern. The further terms of the contract are that the expenses incurred for manufacturing of the said liquor by A1 shall be borne by the complainant and that A1 shall be paid by the latter Rs. 81/- per case of the IMFL and also that A1 is liable to pay the sales tax to the taxation authority in respect of the sales of IMFL so manufactured by the concern of A1 and sold to Mysore Sales International Limited ('msil' for short ). Another term of the agreement was that the amount of sales tax that becomes payable by A1 to the taxing authority on the quantity of manufactured IMFL sold to MSIL at a given time shall be paid in advance to the complainant by A1 enabling the latter to make payment thereof, in turn, to the taxing authority. This amount so paid in advance to A1 was subject to its deduction amount by the complainant on realisation of the respective invoice amount from the MSIL. While the business transactions under the contract between the parties were being carried on broadly on the basis of the said terms A1 gave Ex. P3 authorisation letter dated 28-11-1992 to the purchaser MSIL authorising it to make payments to the complainant directly in respect of supplies of the IMFL made by A1. It was further stated therein that the said authorisation was valid until expressly withdrawn by A1 at any time in future. ;