JRD TATA Vs. PAYAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above mentioned Criminal Revision Petitions. are directed against order dated 23rd April, 1982 of a Metropolitan Magistrate, summoning the above mentioned petitioners in a complaint case under Sections 406 & 477A read with Section 120 B, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the above mentioned revision petitions in brief are that Shri J.R.D Tata. petitioner in Cr. R.No. 170/82, is the Chairman of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). Rusi Mody, petitioner in Cr. R. No. 179/82 is the Managing Director of the Company while P.S. Praiad and Sujit Gupta, petitioneri in Cr. R. No. 178/82, are the Sales Manager and Regional Director reipectively of the Company. At the relevant time P.S. Prasad was Manager Sales and Sujit Gupta was Regional Director of the Company. M/s. Amin Chand Bhola Nath, which was a partnership firm (respondent No. 2 in all the above mentioned revision petitions) comprising Suresh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Yogesh Kumar, sons of Rajender Kumar, was carrying on business of re-rolling as conversion agents for the Company. The precise nature of the business was that the company used to send tested steel billets from time to time to respondent No. 2 for conversion into Tiscon Bars. During the course of stock checking of respondent No. 2 by the officials of the Company in February 1979, certain shortages of the stock of Tiscon ban were dctected. The same were estimated to be worth Rs. 10,22,458.00 Suresh Kumar, husband of respondent No.1 was the managing partner of respondent No. 2 at that time. The Company sought to fasten criminal liability on respondent No. 2 for alleged misappropriation of the Tiscon bars found short at the time of checking. Eventually a settlement was arrived at between the parties which culminated in agreement of pledge of movables, viz. diamond jewellery etc., dated 23rd February, 1979. The said agreement was executed between respondent No. 2 on the one hand and the Company on the other, the latter being represented through P.S. Prasad. Under the said agreement respondent No. 2 accepted its liability to pay a sum of Rs. 8,52,414.00 after adjusting Rs. l,70,044.00 due to respd. No. 2 for conversion charges to the Company on account of shortage in the stock of Tiscen bars. They paid a sum ofRs.2,00,000.00 bymeans of cheques drawn on the New Bank of India then and there and undertook to pay the balance amount of Rs 6,52,458.00 within six months of the agreement. Respondent No. 2 acting through Shri Suresh Kumar also pledged jewellery belonging to his wife Mrs. Payal Kumar, respondent No. 1 herein, by way of security for the payment of the said amount. The estimated value of the pledged jewellery was stated to be Rs. 3,72,000.00 . It was further stipulated that in the event of default on the part of respondent No. 2 in discharging their liability by making payment of the balance amount stated above alongwith interest within six months of the agreement the Company would have the right to sell the pledged ornaments without the intervention of a court of law and appropriate the sale proceeds thereof after deducting the expenses etc. incurred on sale towards the amount outstanding against respondent No. 2 and interest falling due thereon. The agreement, however, provided that the Company would give notice of 15 clear days of the sale of the pledged ornaments to respondent No. 2. The company also agreed not to institute criminal proceedings against respondent No. 2 in case they furnished further security in the amount of Rs. 2,80,458.00 within six months of the agreement. In other words, the Company agreed not to institute criminal proceedings of any kind against respondent No. 2 in the event of the latter paying off the full amount due from them within six months of the agreement.

(3.) On 3rd March, 1982, the respondents instituted a complaint against S/Shri P.S. Prasad, Sujit Oupta, Rusi Mody, JR.D.Tataand Surinder Oupta of M/s. Shri Ram Hari Ram, Jewellers, for committing offences under Section 406, 418, 419. 420,477A,120-Bandl09ofthc Indian Penal Code. They averred that under threat of prosecution, Suresh Kumar, husband of respondent No. I, who was then working as managing partner of respondent No. 2, was coerced to enter into agreement of pledge of movables with the Company, Ex. Public Witness 2/B being copy thereof. For that very reason respondent No. I was obliged to pledge her very valuable dia- mond jewellery (as detailed in annexure 'A' to the complaint) with the- Company although it was her Istridhan and its value was estimated at a very low figure of Rs. 3.72 lakhs. The main reason for the shortage found in the stock of Tiscon bars was said to be supply of raw material of different specifications due to mis-management at the end of the Company which resulted in higher wastage. It was further averred that the parties had agreed that the final amounts due to the Company would be ascertained after going into the accounts of both the partiel because the Company had yet to make payment on account of bundling, bending and conversion charges etc. to respondent No. 2 on the basis of the bills submitted to the Company. Further, an assurance was given by P.S.Prasad, accused No. I, to the husband of respondent No. I that the pledged jewellery would not be old and it was being delivered to the Company only by way of collateral security. Hawevar, the respondents were shocked to learn on receipt of letter dated 8th December, 1979 of the Company, accused No. 2, that the pledged jewellery had since been disposed of by auction on 29th November, 1979. The precise grievance of the complainants respondents was that they did not receive any notice of sale of the pledged jewellery as stipulated in the forecaid agreement. On the other band, Mukesh Kumar, who was then working as managing partner of the firm-respondent No. 2, vide his letter dated 23rd November, 1979 sent 13 bills claiming a total amount of Rs. 5,56,543/29P. and claimed adjustment of same against the amounts due from them to the Company. Further, he enclosed cheques for payment of Rs. 219,515/14P. in full and final settiflinent of the whole amount due to the Company. Hi .ilnoloughtrcIcaseofthejeweHcrypIcdgcdby respondent f4o.l through her bwbandSuresbKumarwithtbe Company. The said letter was duly received by the Company on 26th November, 1979 but even than the petitioners P.S. Prasad and Sujit Gupta in conspiracy with petitioners J.R.D. Tata and Rusi Mody disposed of the jewellery pledged with the Company with mala fide and dishonest intention of causing wrongful loss to the complainants and wrongful gain to themselves. They denied having received any notice or letter dated 28th August, 1979 or 13th November, 1979 which were allegedly sent by the Company to them as stated in their letter dated 8th December, 1979 (annexure 'E' to the complaint).