N S KAPOOR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Petition the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dated 17.1.1984.

(2.) Briefly staing the facts of this case are that the present petitioner was a member of the Governing Body of Shri Guru Teg Bahadur 'Khasla College Delhi. The said College, on account of the option sought by the University of Delhi, wanted to shift its building from Dev Nagar, where it was located, to the University Campus. According to the petitioner, after obtaining grant from the University Grants Commission for the construction of new building inside the University Campus, the Governing Body of the said College constituted a Committee of four persons i.e., Shri G.S. Randhawa, the then Principal of the College, Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Honorary Treasurer of the College, Shri Daljit Singh, In-charge Building affairs and Shri JaswantSingh, Engineer. Shri Daljit Singh and Shri Jaswant Singh are since dead. The petitioner filed acomplaint against the said four persons under Sections408/409/406/34/120-B/4091PC dated 10.1.1979 inter alia alleging that large funds which were put at the disposal of the Management of the said College was misappropriated by the said four persons, who were solely responsible for carrying out the building activities of the new building of the College. In support of his complaint, the petitioner examined himself, Shri Sajjan Singh Sethi, the then Chairman of the Governing Body, and six others witnesses. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 17.1.1984 dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the complaint, the petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition in this Court.

(3.) Mr. Jatinder Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that from the basis of the evidence on record and the voluminous documents filed by the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had abdicated his jurisdiction by not issuing process to common the aforesaid accused persons. Mr. Sethi has argued that in the impugned order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has come to a finding "No doubt the absence of receipts and non-signing of vouchers points towards a grave irregularity in the maintenance of accounts, but unless the payees deny the receipt of their amounts, it cannot be said that the aforesaid four persons have dishonestly misappropriated the amounts accounted as paid." Yet at another place in the impugned order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has stated "The complainant has also alleged that the measurement contains an entry relating to the dome whereas no dome has been constructed on the principal's residence."