SUBIMAL RUDRA Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBIMAL Rudra has filed this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for setting him at liberty.

(2.) THE Petitioner was working as an agent of M/s. A.H. Wheeler and Company (P) Limited, Allahabad (hereinafter called the company), for running a book -stall at Gauhati railway station in Assam. In course of dealings with the said agent, the company discovered that Subimal Rudra had fraudulently and dishonestly made up the sale (sic) with the intention that the said (sic) statement of account be used for the purpose of cheating. They also found that Subimal Rudra used as genuine those sale accounts, knowing and having reason to believe that they were 'forged'. Therefore, on October 23, 1968 the company lodged a first information report with the Inspector -in -charge, Police Station Cannington, Allahabad, alleging that Subimal Rudra, as their agent at Gauhati railway station, had done the acts mentioned above and that he, in his capacity as agent of the complainant company, having been entrusted with books, magazines and other literature, had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property and its sale proceeds. The manner in which, according to the informant, the criminal breach of trust was committed was given in the first information report. It is not necessary to repeat the details which are given in the first information report. But in substance the allegations are that the sale accounts do not correctly disclose the transactions and that by incorrectly mentioning different items in the accounts, more money was made available to the agent by way of commission etc. than was really due to him. These amounts were said to have been misappropriated by Subimal Rudra. Accordingly, it was alleged in the first information report that Subimal Rudra, as agent of the company, had, in the manner given in the report, committed 'official breach of trust' and had misappropriated various amounts. A request was made in the first information report that a case Under Sections 409/468/471 IPC may be registered and investigation against Subimal Rudra be made.

(3.) ON the basis of this first information report investigation was made by the police at Allahabad and proceedings Under Sections 87 and 88 Code of Criminal Procedure were taken against Subimal Rudra. He was ultimately taken into custody but later on released on bail. The Petitioner filed an application in this Court Under Section 561 -A Code of Criminal Procedure but the same was rejected on 23 -4 -1970, The learned single Judge, who decided the application, held that in the absence of full facts being on the record it was not possible for this Court to decide if the Magistrate at Allahabad had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence at Allahabad or not. The Court further held that it was not possible to say that the first information report did not disclose any offence.