- (1.) This application under Section 482 of the code of Criminal procedure has been filed by Kallol Kumar Bysak and Jagadish Prasad Choudhury, who are made accused in C/14918 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court at Calcutta under Section 406/34 praying for quashing of the proceeding, mainly, on the following grounds : a. that the aggrieved person did not come forward to lodge the complaint personally but through his representative, the holder of power of attorney which was not placed before the Court in original and admitted into evidence; b. that the said representative i.e., the complainant had no personal knowledge about the official transactions of the person aggrieved and made statement on S/A before the Court without having any knowledge about the alleged offence; c. that the learned Court failed to appreciate that in a judicial proceeding evidence is supposed to be legal and valid evidence and a document placed before the Court is to be admitted into evidence on proof; d. that the prosecution was barred by limitation in view of the fact that request of Mr. Bhargava the person effected dated 7.3.2002 was turned down by the petitioners and the offence, in fact and in substance, if any, had taken place on that date when the petitioners replied him that he was not entitled to get the money deducted from his salary and deposited with the trustees of Titagarh Paper Mills. The prosecution was lunched in the year 2007. Therefore, it is barred by limitation; and e. that the learned Magistrate was supposed to issue process after being satisfied with the evidence, oral and written, placed before it but, in this case that was done resulting in gross miscarriage of justice;
(2.) In order to appreciate the entire matter properly, a short reference to the factual background is given below :
(3.) On 3.9.2007 a petition of complaint was filed by Krishan Prakash Bhargava, the opposite party herein, against the petitioner praying for their prosecution under Section 406 of I.P.C. on the ground that the petitioners failed to release his superannuation fund benefits lying with the Titagarh paper mill superannuation fund upon ceasetion of his employment despite several request and advocate's letter dated 7.3.2002. The petitioner no. 1 looks after the function of the trust while the petitioner no. 2 is a Managing Director of the Company. They inconnivance with each other, converted the superannuation fund benefit of the complainant and thereby committed breach of trust.;