SHANTILAL CHOPRA Vs. PRABIR RANJAN SEN
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Prabir Ranjan Sen
Click here to view full judgement.
Raghunath Bhattacharyya, J. -
(1.)This revisional application is by the two Petitioners Shantilal and Abhoy, brothers, who have been summoned under Sec. 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code along with two others by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on a petition filed by the complainant - -opposite party Prabir Ranjan Sen.
(2.)The facts leading to the present application are simple. The opposite party, Prabir Ranjan, is one of the partners of M/s. Sensons Corporation of 3D Bethune Row, Calcutta, dealing in business of manufacturing steel windows, doors etc. Shantilal is a Director of Messrs Damiano & Co., a firm of export and import, and Abhoy is an officer of the firm. In July 1970 the Petitioners introduced themselves as agents of Md. Ali, the accused No. 3, and also introduced the latter to the opposite party and other partners as a contractor of Nepal running the business under the name and style of 'M. Singh and M. Ali'. It was represented that Md. Ali had come to place order for immediate supply of steel windows, steel ventilators etc. valued at Rs. 12,330 for the use of Government Hospital, Rajbiraj, Nepal. It is further alleged that the Petitioner before us introduced the accused, the accused No. 4 B.R. Gupta, Director, Premier Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd., to the opposite party and amongst other stipulations not detailed in the petition of complaint, asked the complainant to deliver the materials to Premier Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. for despatch of the same to Nepal. It was also stated that the bill supported with transporters' receipt should be drawn on M/s. M. Singh and M. Ali of Rajbiraj, Nepal, and be negotiated for payment through Nepal Bank Ltd. It is stated that the bill copy was to be sent to Md. Ali. For the transaction of the business, as agreed to, a small sum of Rs. 1,000 was accepted by the complainant considering this a trial order. The complainant then entrusted the accused No. 4 with the goods along with a copy of consignment made for delivery of the goods to Md. Ali at Nepal after being satisfied with Bank receipts and other papers showing payment of the price of the goods. The accused No. 4, however, delivered the goods to the accused No. 3 without being satisfied about the discharge document of the Bank. The allegation in the written complaint is that the accused No. 3, in collusion with accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, took away the goods from the complainant without making any payment of the bill. The grievance of the complainant is that now the accused No. 3 has been finding fault with the goods although they have been utilised for construction of Rajbiraj Hospital and that the accused No. 4 has been regretting for his mistake for delivering the goods to the accused No. 3 without proper receipt. All the four accused persons have been denying liabilities for the goods delivered to the accused No. 3. According to the complainant, he is convinced that all the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat his firm relating to a sum of Rs. 11,330 due for goods supplied.
(3.)The learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate passed order for issuing summons against Shantilal, Abhoy and Md. Ali under Sec. 420/120B and against accused No. 4 B.R. Gupta under Sec. 407 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the Court of the Magistrate and they were granted bail. Their prayer for exemption for personal appearance under Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was refused. Thereafter, they have filed the present application for quashing the criminal proceeding against them or, if no quashing is possible, for relief under Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.