ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD Vs. SHARAFUL HAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Patna High Court holding that the issuance of summons to the appellants by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1613 (C) of 2002 filed by the respondent No.1 is proper.

(3.) Factual background in nutshell is as follows: Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint on 9-8-2002 alleging that the appellants had committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short in IPC). The date of occurrence was indicated to be between 12-7-1995 to 8-5-2002. The basic allegations in the complaint were that an advertisement was issued by the appellant No.1 seeking applications for appointment to the post of Area Manager. The complainant, who was then working in another concern applied for the post, was called to the interview on 14-7-1995 and was asked to report at the Bombay office of the appellant No.1-company on 1-8-1995 for training. After completion of the training period the complainant was asked to report to the Patna depot. He was given appointment from 9-9-1995 by letter dated 1-9-1995 wherein it was indicated that he was appointed as Field Officer and not Area Manager. According to the respondent, on receipt of the appointment letter the complainant asked the concerned officials i.e. the other accused persons as to how he was being appointed as Field Officer when he had appeared at the interview for the post of Area Manager. He was assured that the letter for the post of Area Manager will be issued in the first week of April, 1996. But no such letter came to be issued and he was not appointed as Area Manager. Grievance was, therefore, made that the accused persons had initially deceived him by appointing as Field Officer and not as Area Manager, though he was assured that the appointment letter in that regard will be issued. Therefore, they were liable to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409, IPC.