DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-293
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 19,2014

DHARMENDRA KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
(2.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.05.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case No. 3427 of 2011, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad.
(3.) Brief facts are that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged a complaint before the Magistrate stating the the complainant is a Corporate company having its branch office at 20/02/10, Ground Floor Site-IVth Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Police Station Link Road Tehsil, District Ghaziabad. The company of the complainant does the business of Zinc Scrap from its above mentioned branch. The accused Dharmendra Kumar is proprietor to Jagdamba Metal Traders, Kanwariganj Road, Aligarh who came to the complainant in connection with business along with the relative of the complainant namely Himanshu Varshnay. Himanshu Varshnay introduced the accused as his good friend and told the complainant that the accused wants to purchase Zinc Scrap and it was said that the payment of Zinc Scrap will be made within 10 days. The complainant on believing the accused Dharmendra Kumar and on the request of his relative Himanshu Varshnay promise, sent 9750 Kg. of Zinc Scrap valuing Rs. 7,02,000/- and Rs. 35,100/- as VAT, total amount Rs. 7,37,100/-. The accused said that since he would get the Zinc Scrap, he would make the payment. The complainant sent Zinc Scrap weighting 9750 Kg. valuing Rs. 7,37,100/- including VAT. On 10.05.2011 vide invoice no. 043 by Chaudhary Flight Career, 175 Hapur Road, Chandrapuri, Ghaziabad by Lorry No. U.P. 17 T 1315 and the complainant paid the fare of Rs. 5000/- to the lorry company. The Zinc Scarp? was received by the accused on 11.05.2011 which was also communicated to the complainant by mobile. The complainant against asked the accused for payment but the accused mis-appropriated the goods and refused to make payment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.