S K AGARWAL Vs. MANOJ DALMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist in all the above three revisions is the sales manager of Diamond Cement Company, Imlai, District Damoh in Madhya Pradesh. The opposite party No. 1 in revision Nos. 1023 of 1993 and 1024 of 1993 was appointed as sales organiser of the said company on 29-4-1988. He was also appointed on 1-10-1988 as clearing, storing and forwarding agent. The company vide letter dated 22-12-1990 directed the opposite party No. 1 to accept the amount from the dealers through drafts and cheques only and not in cash. The opposite party No. 1 in revision No. 1025 of 1993 is brother of opposite party No. 1 in other two revisions.

(2.) From April, 198 9/01/1991 about 1.35 Matric tons of cement was supplied by the company to the opposite party No. 1. The said cement was sold by the opposite party No. 1. The F.I.R.'s against the opposite party No. 1 were lodged by the revisionist on 24-4-1991 for offences under Section 409, I.P.C. alleging that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 57.30 lacs of the company which was realised by him by the sales. The police investigated the matter and submitted final report on 2-10-1991. The learned A.C.J.M., before whom the final report was filed on 18-11-1991 ordered for the rejection of the final report and that case be registered and that the complainant be summoned for cognizance on 4-12-1991. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. and accepted the documents filed by them and by order dated 22-10-1992 summoned the opposite party No. 1 to stand trial for the offence under Section 409, I.P.C. Similar orders were passed regarding the other F.I.R.'s in those cases. Against those orders, the opposite party No. 1 preferred Criminal Revisions Nos. 193 of 1992, 194 of 1993 and 91 of 1992 before the Sessions Judge, Jhansi. Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1992 and 194 of 1992 were allowed by common judgment dated 27-4-1993 and Criminal Revision No. 91 of 1992 was allowed by separate judgment of the same date and the summoning orders passed by the Magistrate have been quashed, hence, present revisions have been filed by the complainant. Since all these three revisions involve the same questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) I have heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate for opposite party No. 1 and the A.G.A.