MAN MOHAN CHOPRA Vs. RAVI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. No. 10313 of 1985 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras; have filed this Petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid C.C. No. 10313 of 1985 and quash the same.

(2.) The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner, arraying them as accused 1 and 2. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The complainant is doing export and import business in Madras. He is having dealings with Punjab National Bank, Madras Branch, in connection with his export and import business. The second accused, the then Chairman of the Punjab National Bank is father of first accused. He suggested to the complainant in 1979-80 to transact business with his son, the first accused, who was doing business in London at that time. Accused No. 1 was working as Sales Manager in Rank Xerox Co., .London. He resigned his job and started a company called Raxshire Limited with the help of second accused who was then Chairman of Punjab National-Bank in India. The second accused in his capacity as Chairman of the Punjab National Bank, promised to help the complainant in various ways provided this complainant exported textiles to first accused company in London on usance credit basis. On that representation made by second accused, the complainant started exporting textiles to second. 1 accused at Raxshire, London. But for the assurance given by second accused, the complainant would not have exported goods on sance credit -basis but first accused would have exported only on the basis of Documents against payment. The complainant exported first consignment on 28.3.1980 and last consignment was on 12.5.1983. The first accused was making payment regularly upto May, 1983. During June, 1983, first accuseds intention to cheat the complainant became manifest as 13 cheques sent by first accused were dishonoured. The total amount covered by those 13 dishonoured cheques comes to $ 6,12,759.51 viz., about one crore in Indian Rupees. One of the cheques issued by first accused was returned with remarks signature differs. The cheque containing forged signature was intentionally issued by first accused. The first accused had cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 4,32,25,881.92. The complainant made several attempts to recover the outstanding from first accused by repeated written demands. The first accused had evaded to pay the dues, with intention to cheat the complainant. He represented that he had sent goods to Nigeria and he could not get payment because of the military coup there. In support of his representation, the first - accused endorsed to the complainant a cheque issued by a Nigerian ,part for a sum of Rs. 3,21,000/-. That cheque was also dishonoured. The complainant came to know that the first accused has sold most of the goods in London itself through brokers and only a small portion of the goods has been sent to Nigerian party. The complainant would not have sent the goods to first accused but for the representation made by him that his cheques would be honoured. Both accused 1 and 2 have colluded with each other with a view to cheat the complainant.

(3.) The first accused asked the complainant to send the documents to Bank of Credit and Commerce International, London. The complainant instructed Punjab National Bank, Madras to present the documents through B.C.C.I., London. All these documents through B.C.C.I., London and the Punjab National Bank, London were kept out of picture on account of influence used by second accused. In normal banking practice, the documents should have been sent through Punjab National Bank, London which was not done intentionally because of the influence given by second accused by abusing his official position. The motive for by-passing Punjab National Bank, London is to prevent the complainant from recovering the dues with the help of Punjab National Bank, London. The amount of Rs. 4.30 Crores cheated by accused 1 and 2 has been directed and converted by them in various ways. Accused 1 and 2 have committed the offence of cheating and forgery. Hence the cc m p Ia i nt.