- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant submits that earlier the lawyer of the opposite party was Mr. Baner - jee and he has got no instruction but argued the appeal.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court committed an error of law in coming to a finding that the accused -respondent who was working as an Administrative Officer in the Company of complainant, has given all the files to the concerned lawyer. Since, two files were still missing admittedly as per the evidence of P.W. 4 and as such the accused -respondent was responsible for keeping the files with him, causing loss to the Company and as such he has committed an offence. After, hearing both the parties, I find that the complainant -accused filed a complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, stating therein that the complainant/appellant, Shyam Sundar Narena is an employee of Bihar Air Products Ltd. and was posted as Assistant Office Master. He has alleged that the accused -respondent, Ashok Kumar Chaudhary was posted as an Administrative Officer of the Company and during the period of his employment he was incharge of the office files. It is alleged that the accused -respondent submitted his resignation on 31.5.1991 to the Managing Director of the Company and his resignation was accepted with effect from 1.6.1991 and he was asked to hand over all the files to the complainant - appellant. It is further alleged that the complainant -appellant by his letter No. 341 dated 26.12.1991 requesting the accused - respondent to hand over the following files : (i) Case file of M/s. Sach Deva Agency, (ii) Case file of National Insurance Company Ltd., Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 (iii) Case file of A. K. Tiwary, (iv) Case file of Sri R.P. Verma, (v) Case file of Amonia Plant of Sindri Unit. He has also stated that all those files taken out from the custody by the accused - respondent, Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and he has signed the gate slip while leaving office with the files those are my files and it was alleged by keeping those files the accused -respondent is helping other persons, who are inimical to the Company and as such the complaint for taking cognizance against the accused -respondent under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance was taken against the accused - respondent and thereafter, summons were issued and after appearance of the accused -respondent the trial was conducted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella, who after trial and hearing both the parties, found no case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and acquitted the accused -respondent.
(3.) IN course of trial the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses. P.W. 1, is Achaibat Nath Pandey, P.W. 2 is Kameshwar Singh, P.W. 3 is Dinesh Kumar Singh and P.W. 4 is Shyam Sundar Narera.;