- (1.) Since both the cases arise out of the same case, it were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. One Sunil Kumar Agarwal, complainant (petitioner in Cr. MP. No. 1340 of 2012) by entering into an agreement dated 20.3.2010 opened a trading account with the Company, namely, SMC Global Securities Limited through its Managing Director, Subhash Chand Aggarwal and Manish Kumar, a Local Branch Manager of the Company to trade in equities (securities) or deal in its derivatives. Everything went on smoothly till 14.9.2010. Thereafter, it happened so that a cheque bearing no. 7952 of Rs. 70,000/- given by the complainant was first credited on 15.9.2010 but the same was debited on 1.10.2010 from the account of the complainant. Likewise, cheque no. 7953 of Rs. 71,000/- given by the complainant was first credited in the account on 21.9.2010 but it was debited on 19.10.2010, as a result of which the complaint was forced to minimize his position of contract and thereby it suffered huge loss whereas the company was put to wrongful gain. On such allegation, complaint case bearing no. 590 of 2011 was lodged against M/s SMC Global Securities Limited, its Managing Director, Subhash Chand Aggarwal, Manish Kumar (petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1078 of 2010) and also against Rajesh Agarwal for commission of the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code. On such complaint, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against Manish Kumar (petitioner no. 3) and one Rajesh Agarwal, vide its order dated 19.11.2011. Since cognizance of the offences was not taken against the Company and its Managing Director (petitioner nos. 1 and 2 of Cr. M.P. No. 1078 of 2012) of any of the alleged offences, the complainant preferred a criminal revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Ranchi, vide Cr. Rev. No. 211 of 2011 whereas Manish Kumar (petitioner no. 3) and one Rajesh Agarwal being aggrieved with the said order under which cognizance was taken under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code preferred a Cr. Rev. No. 13 of 2012.
(2.) Learned Sessions Judge, Ranchi having heard both the applications together did hold that the court below did commit illegality in not taking cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 against the Company and its Managing Director (petitioner nos. 1 and 2 of Cr. M.P. No. 1078 of 2012). To that extent, Cr. Rev. No. 211 of 2011 was allowed whereas Cr. Rev. No. 13 of 2012 was dismissed.
(3.) Since cognizance of the offence was not taken mainly for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, the complainant Sunil Kumar Agrawal has filed Cr. M.P. No. 1340 of 2012 whereas Cr. M.P. No. 1078 of 2012 has been filed not only by the Company and its Managing Director (petitioner nos. 1 and 2) against whom it was held that prima facie case is made out under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code but also by Manish Kumar (petitioner no. 3) against whom cognizance of the offence has been taken by the court below. Under the circumstances, both the cases were heard together.;