IQBAL SINGH KEER Vs. SHEKHARAPPA C NAGATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner who is the Managing Director of Karnataka Maharashtra Transport Pvt. Ltd. , has challenged the issue of process against him in Criminal Cases No. 105 of 1982 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sangli. The learned Magistrate had issued process against the petitioner under section 407 read with section 34 I. P. C.

(2.) THE brief facts that are relevant for purposes of decision are as follows : the petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Managing Director of a transport company. This transport company had branches at different places in the country and we are basically concerned with two of the branches, the first of them being the Branch situated at Hubli and the second one being the branch situated at Madhav Nagar, Dist. Sangli. Admittedly, this particular company was not on the approved list of transporters with the Indian Banks Association. Messrs Cargo Movers of India, Calcutta of which concern the accused No. 1 is the sole proprietor happened to be on the approved list of I. B. A. and under an internal arrangement, the petitioners company used to transport goods that were entrusted to Messrs Cargo Movers of India, Calcutta. The complaint states, that between the months of August and November 1981, 219 packets of yarn were entrusted to Messrs Cargo Movers India, Calcutta, at Hubli by the Nandi Hasbi Textile Mills Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the mills) for being transported to Madhavnagar and being delivered to the original accused Nos. 6 to 9. The documents in respect of this transaction were to be negotiated through the Syndicate Bank and consequently, it was a necessary condition that the goods could be delivered by the transporters only after the documents have been retired from the Bank. It is the case of the complainant, however, that the documents were not retired as a result of which, the same had to be re-issued and re-submitted and when they were not retired on the second occasion, the matter was investigated into because the complainant mills were required to pay the entire amount to the bankers with interest. At this stage, the accused No. 5, who was the manager of the petitioners company at Madhavnagar issued a letter dated 22-2-1982 admitting that he had parted with the consignment without being first insisted on the documents being released from the Bank. The accused Nos. 6 to 9 in their letter to the mills, dated 14-2-1982, expressed regret for their conduct and assured the mills, that they would make payment. It appears that the mills were unable to recover the large amount of money being over Rs. 3. 25 lacs and consequently, the mills filed a complaint before the Criminal Court against 9 persons. The complaint is at Exhibit A to the petition. The present petitioner is the original accused No. 2.

(3.) MR. Vakil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the issue of process principally on the ground that no criminal case can be said to have been made out against accused No. 2. Mr. Vakil submits that the learned Magistrate, even if he was satisfied that some of the accused deserved to be proceeded against, ought to have scrutinised the material placed before him and ought to have excluded those of the accused against whom there is no justification for proceeding in a Criminal Court. To this extent, Mr. Vakil has submitted that though the petitioner No. 2 has moved this Court, that the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 who happened to be the employees of the petitioner at Hubli and against whom the only charge is that they had taken delivery of the goods on behalf of the transporters and thereafter consigned the same, is wholly unjustified and that if this Court is satisfied that the process should be quashed against original accused No. 2, that similarly, the criminal proceedings should be quashed against the original accused Nos. 3 and 4.