JAGAT NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against an order dated 15th April 1983 of a Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint instituted by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 under Section 420 IPC. The said order was made under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) Respondent No. 2 Kanwar Balbir Singh is the Managing Director of M/s Kanwar Papers Private Limited, Kala Amb, Distt. Sirmaur (Himachal Pradesh) which was incorporated as a private limited company on 14th January 1981. A complaint was instituted by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 sometime in January 1983 alleging that be was employed as a headclerk in Grindlays Bank and he was to retire therefrom on superannuation on 15th February 1981. He was, therefore, on the look out for a job to maintain himself and his family after his retirement. Sometime in December 1980 he happened to meet respondent No. 2 at the residence of Shri H,K.S. Malik a retired Additional District & Sessions Judge, who was his close friend. The accused was closely related to Sbri Malik and, therefore, he had occasions to meet the respondent several times at the residence of Shri Malik. During the said meetings respodent No, 2 came to know that the petitioner was about to retire from service and that he was on the look out for a job and so he planned somehow to get the money from the petitioner which was paid to him on retirement. The respondent, therefore, offered to give the petitioner a job in his company M/s Kanwar Papers Private Limited which he was to float provided the petitioner purchase shares of that company. The petitioner was, however, reluctant to take the risk of purchasing the shares of a small company which was yet to be floated much less start functioning. However, on the respondent drawing a very rosy picture of the future progress of the company and also offering a job to him, he agreed to deposit Rs. 60,000.00 at 18% per annum interest. Of course, he was given the option to purchase the shares even after the company had gone into production. Feeling satisfied with the promises made by respondent No. 2 the petitioner paid Rs. 60,000.00 to the aforesaid company by means of a cheque and a draft which were duly enchashed in March 1981. However, the respondent did not keep his promise of providing a job and he was insulted by the driver of respondent No. 2 at the latter's instance when he was called by respondent No. 2 for giving him a job at Kala Amb. The petitioner protested against the behaviour of the respondent who then offered a job to him with Shri Malik who was one of the Directors of the said company. He was assured that he would work with Shri Malik at Delhi itself as his personal assistant but on the petitioner trying his level best for the said job the respondent failed to provide the same. Feeling frustrated the petitioner demanded back his money but the respondent did not pay. However, he was stunned when in August 1982 Sbri Malik showed him a share certificate dated 20th June 1981 to the effect that shares of the face value of Rs. 60,000.00 of the company had been allotted to Shri Malik and not to him. At this stage he could realise that he had been cheated by resdondent No. 2. He again tried to persuade respondent No. 2 to pay back his money but in vain. The petitioner, inter alia, contended that he would not have made payment of such a huge amount to respondent No. 2 out of his life's savings but for the clear assuance given to him by the latter that he would be provided with a job and that he would be paid interest at 18% per annum on the amount so deposited with the company.

(3.) The petitioner examined himself and also Shri H.K.S. Malik in support of his case. Shri Malik has by and large supported the version of the petitioner and has, inter alia, deposed that the share certificate dated 20th June 1981 which had been issued in the name of the petitioner was received by him sometime in August 1982 and he showed the same to the petitioner.