RAM AVTAR GUPTA Vs. GOPAL DAS TALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter as far back as 28th of Oct., 1980 the respondents (the accused) were granted 4 weeks' time to pay a sum of Rs. 19,407-46 P. to the appellant (complainant) with a view to compound the matter and though further extensions of time were granted the respondents have not paid or deposited the said amount for being paid over to the appellant till this day. We therefore, reject a further request for extension to deposit the a mount and proceed to deal with the matter on merits.

(2.) A complaint under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 34 and 120B, I. P. C. was filed by the appellant (Manager of Transport Corporation of India) against the respondents who are partners of M/s. Badridas Jagdish Kumar, of Hathras (the consignees), in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh. It appears that a consignment of 101 bags of copra valued at Rs 22,620/- was despatched by M/s. Jagannath and Sons, Mysore (consignor) to M/s. Badridas Jagdish Kumar of Hathras (consignee) in respect where of Transport Corporation of India were the carriers. The bill in respect of that consignment was negotiated by the State Bank of India, Mysore for payment at Hathras in favour of State Bank of India, Hathras and the consignee was supposed to retire the transport receipt and other documents from the State Bank of India, Hathras by making payments of the price of the goods enabling them to take delivery of the consignment. The case of the complainant (the carriers) was that by misrepresentation and deceit the respondents (partners of the consignee) induced the complainant to deliver the consignment to them without retiring the T. R. from the State Bank of India, Hathras and without making payment to the Bank. It appears that the respondents merely paid the freight (Rs. 1,400) and later on made a part payment of Rs. 3,600/- towards the price of the consignment. So at the insistence of the consignors the complainant (the carriers) settled the dues of the consignors by paying to them Rs. 19,407 and odd. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the respondents under S. 420 r/w. 34, I. P. C. The respondents went in revision to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Aligarh for quashing the charge on the ground that no offence was disclosed, but learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision. The respondents invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 482, Cr. P. C. by preferring Criminal Misc. Application No. 788/79 challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court by its order dated 19-9-1979 quashed the criminal case. The appellant (complainant) has challenged the High Court's order in this appeal.

(3.) The principal reason why the High Court was inclined to quash the criminal proceedings was that it felt that after all in respect of the concerned consignment the respondents had paid three sums of Rs. 1,400/- (towards the freight), Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 19,000/- and odd (the last 2 towards the price) and as such it was a case of mere delay on the part of the respondents in discharging their monetary liability and the High Court has observed thus: