M V BABY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two criminal petitions are filed under S. 482, crl. P. C, to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 3664 of 1985, on the file of the II metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The first accused is the petitioner in Crl. M. P. No. 5389 of 1985 while the second accused is the petitioner in Crl. M. P. No. 5387 of 1985.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are these: THE second accused, M. V. Baby (petitioner in Crlm. P. No. 5387 of 1985) , M. C. Kuriakose and lalu Alex joined together and constituted a firm by and under the name of kopanhagan Pharmaceuticals with its registered office at Pushpa Nagar, Madras 34. On a Complaint given by M. C. Kuriakose, one of the partners, the respondent-Sub- Inspector, Central Crime Branch, has filed a charge-sheet against these two petitioners for offences under Ss. 408 and 408 read with S. 34, i. P. C. THE allegation is that these two accused in furtherance of their common intention the first accused (petitioner in Crl. M. P. No. 5389 of 1985) being a clerk employed in the partnership firm, and the second accused (petitioner in crl. M. P. No. 5387 of 1985) being the managing partner of the said firm, dishonestly converted the properties entrusted with them for their personal gain by lifting the goods without the knowledge of the other partners to the shop of the second accused at Piravam, Ernakulam District, Kerala by booking the consignments in their names and made themselves liable for offences punishable under S. 408, I. P. C, by the first accused and S. 408, by the first accused and S. 408 read with S. 34, I. P. C, by the second accused. THE charge sheet has been taken on file by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras and numbered as C. C. No. 3664 of 1985. It is to quash these proceedings the two accused have filed these petitions.

(3.) THE first accused is only an employee of the partnership firm and he has been acting under the directions of the second accused managing partner. By no figment of imagination can it be said that the first accused was entrusted with or with any dominion over the assets of the partnership firm. THE prosecution cannot also stand against the first accused.