CHANDI CHARAN DUTTA Vs. BHABATARAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an order of discharge passed by a Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 253(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE petitioner is a bullion merchant at 163 Harrison Road, Calcutta. The opposite party was an employee under him. The opposite party left the service of the petitioner on January 31. 1962. From February 7. 1962 onwards the opposite party started threatening the petitioner that unless the opposite party was paid Rs. 7000/ - by way of compensation he would make some fictitious' entries in the books of accounts which he had taken away with him, produce them before the sales tax and income -tax authorities and cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and his business. It was alleged that on April 7, 1962, the opposite party repeated the threats to one Asoke Roy Choudhury, an employee of the petitioner, asking him to communicate the threats to the petitioner. These threats were communicated by Asoke Roy Choudhury to the petitioner and the petitioner filed a petition of complaint against the opposite party on April 10. 1962. The opposite party was summoned under Section 506, Indian Penal Code. Evidence was led but the opposite party has been discharged under Section 253(I) of The Code.

(3.) FURTHERMORE , even if it be said that the threat was to Asoke Roy Choudhury, the threat was to cause injury to the business of the petitioner by making certain fictitious entries in the account books and producing them before the sale tax or the income -tax authorities. The threat has direct reference to injury to the property of the petitioner but it has reference to injury to the reputation of the petitioner also as by the threat the good name of the business is sought to be injured and thereby the reputation of the petitioner who is a partner of the business is also sought to be injured. Thus even if it be said that it was a threat to Asoke Roy Choudhury the case comes under the words, 'whoever the tens another with any injury to the reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested'. So, in any view of the matter, if the facts are true, the interpretation made by the learned Magistrate cannot be accepted as correct.