- (1.) ORDER dated 8th November, 2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Additional Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in G. R. Case No.22 of 2007 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Additional Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur arising out of Raiganj Police Station Case No.7 of 2007 dated 5.1.2007 under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code rejecting the prayer for discharge from the aforesaid case has been assailed.
(2.) THE instant case was registered for investigation on the basis of a written information lodged by one Kabir Alam with Raiganj Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the petitioners as agents of M/s. Golden Forest (I) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Company) collecting monies from the local people including the petitioners on promise of repayment of the same along with interest upon maturity. Subsequently, on enquiry, the defacto complainant came to know that the said Company had closed down its business and case has been started against the Director of the said Company at Punjab and Haryana on 24.12.2000. Knowing fully well that the said company had closed down and the Directors were arrested, the petitioners continued to collect monies from the members of the public including the defacto complainant and thereby committed offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Pursuant to investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners in the aforesaid case. The petitioners have prayed for discharge from the case, inter alia, on the ground that they were merely agents of the said Company and that they were not aware of the fact that the said Company had closed its business in 2000. It has been further pleaded that by order dated 5.9.2006, the Apex Court had appointed a Committee of management under the Chairmanship of Justice R. N. Agarwal and that by an earlier order dated 25.2.2005, the Apex Court had clarified that the Committee shall not recognise any private settlement and any party making any claim on the basis of such private settlement must come to the Court for appropriate orders. In the self -same order, it was recorded that complaints have been received that agents of the said Company are still collecting deposits. The Apex Court directed the Committee to issue public notice that neither the concerned Company or any other Company has any agent and nobody is authorized to collect money on his behalf. Pursuant to such direction, the Committee issued public notice. It has been contended that no deposits were received by the petitioners after the issuance of public notice and, therefore, they ought to be discharged from the case.
(3.) LEARNED Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the petition on the premise that the petitioners had collected money after the said Company had closed its business in 2000 and the Directors had been arrested. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being merely agents of the said Company and did not have the requisite mense -rea and had acted as per the directions of the office bearers of the said Company. They were not aware that the said Company had closed its business till the public notice was issued by the Committee constituted by the Apex Court. It is further contended that the monies had been deposited in the accounts of the said Company and there was no question of misappropriation at the end of the petitioners.;