PRASHANT KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 1.3.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. C -1357/2006 whereby and whereunder he dismissed complaint petition under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner (complainant) has stated that he is owner of two Firms, namely, Ajay Aloid & Alcoid Company and Johnson & Johnson Rang Rasayan Udyog. He further alleged that both aforesaid firms are running in separate building inside the Budhia Compound, Ranchi. Complainant further stated that he took loan of Rs. 10 lacs from U.C.O. Bank for running business of Ajay Aloid & Alcoid Company. He further stated that he could not pay back the loan amount, therefore, Bank approached Debt Recovery Tribunal for realization of loan. It is further stated that Debt Recovery Tribunal decided the matter in favour of Bank and directed that Bank can recover its money by selling property and goods of Ajay Aloid & Alcoid Company. It is then alleged that in the garb of aforesaid order of Debt Recovery Tribunal, accused persons dishonestly removed property of the Firm Johnson and Johnson and sold them to Arun Kumar Budhia and Sanjay Kumar Budhia on thrown -away price and, thereby, put huge loss to the petitioner.
(2.) IT appears that petitioner himself examined before Chief Judicial Magistrate on oath and supported his claim made in the complaint petition. It further appears that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in exercise of power as contained under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. referred the matter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi for investigation. It further appears that Sr. Superintendent of Police got the matter investigated through Officer -in -charge of Hindpiri Police Station. Thereafter, Sr. S.P. forwarded the report in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, petitioner filed protest petition, as he was not satisfied with the report of police. Thereafter, learned Court below after considering the materials available on record came to the conclusion that entire activities of Nationalized Bank have been made under law and the matter has been heard and disposed of by learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Thus, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found no irregularities in the action of officers of Bank who were made accused by complainant. Accordingly, finding no sufficient ground to proceed against accused persons, he dismissed the complaint petition. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time of taking cognizance it is not open for the Magistrate to go beyond the materials produced by the complainant for concluding that no case is made out against accused person. In the instant case, Court has considered some materials which could not be taken into account. It is submitted that learned Court below took into consideration mandate of Reserve Bank of India regarding non -permissibility of running two industrial units in same campus. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained in this revision.
(3.) HAVING heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted position that petitioner (complainant) took Rs. 10 lacs as loan from U.C.O. Bank. Annexure -2 shows that petitioner was declared NPA on 31.3.2005 under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as SRFAESI Act). Thereafter, U.C.O. Bank in pursuance of provision of Section 13 of SRFAESI Act asked petitioner to pay Rs. 11,07,125/ - with interest. It then appears that when petitioner did not pay said amount, Bank took symbolic possession of the unit of petitioner on 20.10.2005. Thereafter on 21.10.2005 a notice pasted on the premises for preparation of inventory of the property. When despite aforesaid notice, petitioner did not co -operate in preparation of inventory then, Bank moved under Section 14 of SRFAESI Act before District Magistrate for taking physical possession and preparation of inventory of hypothecated assets of the unit. It then appears that thereafter on 25.4.2006 with the assistance of police and in presence of independent witnesses, inventory, of plant, machinery and stock of paints, prepared and Bank took physical possession of the same. It then appears that petitioner filed appeal before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi against said action of the Bank vide S. A. No. 3/05. Aforesaid appeal was dismissed by Debt Recovery Tribunal and Bank was allowed to sell the plant, machinery and stock of petitioner's company of which possession was taken as per inventory prepared on 25.4.2006. It appears that as per aforesaid direction of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, Bank officials sold aforesaid articles.;