ANUPAM MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being the sole proprietor of one M/s Equinox International, carrying on the business of Freight Forwarding agreed to render his services as a forwarding agent for transportation of a consignment of M/s Wave International (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) to Moscow before 20-05-2001 for which a sum of Rs. 2, 21,890/- and Rs. 4,621/- vide two different cheques was given to the petitioner by the complainant at the time of booking itself. A bill of lading was issued by the petitioner whereby the said consignment was to be delivered to M/s OOO Pharma Market, the consignee at Moscow on ware house delivery basis. However, in the Ocean bill of lading, M/s Northeuro Logistics OY (the principal of the petitioner agent in India vide transportation agreement dated 18-10-2000) was mentioned as the consignee and the invoiced party and the delivery port was given as Kotka in Finland instead of Moscow.

(2.) IT is stated that the said consignment was received by the principal of the petitioner at Kotka and further transported to Moscow to M/s OOO Pharma Market but for doing so, the complainant had to shell out an additional sum of US $ 10570 to the said principal for which the complainant felt cheated and registered an FIR with the P. S. Malviya Nagar on 25-10-2001 under section 406/420/120 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (in short "ipc" ). The charge sheet was filed and the Ld. MM after taking note of the factual matrix of the case and hearing the parties, framed a charge against the petitioner u/s 420 IPC, against which the petitioner is aggrieved and has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Ld. MM has taken into account the fact which is asserted from the material placed on record that the said principal had refused to send the goods to Moscow on the ground that it had not been paid to transport goods from Kotka to Moscow as also that the Ocean bill of lading mentioned the place of delivery of goods as Kotka in Finland and not moscow. The factum of the petitioner despite having received the payment for delivery of goods till Moscow and not making payment of transportation charges to his counterpart, M/s Northeuro Logistics OY was considered prima facie enough to infer dishonest intention of the petitioner. The question as to whether the complainant paid any money to M/s Northeuro Logistics at Kotka or not or whether even such payment was released by the complainant in violation of provisions of fera could not be considered at this stage and could not be of any benefit to the petitioner.