VIREN NATWARLAL SHAH Vs. KHURSHID AHMED JALIL AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code came to be filed respondent herein the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay being the subject matter of Case No. 1168-N of 1980 which have been now renumbered as 163/S/81. A challenge to the maintainability of the said complaint is made in this proceeding filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on behalf of the petitioner accused.

(2.) The gravamen of the allegations as levelled in the complaint are to the effect that some time in January 1979 the accused contacted the complainant and made a representation that he is prepared to extend the benefit of his experience in the marketing and such as he would like to work with him as partner in the Screen printing business. He also assured that he would act to the minimum benefit of the partnership. It is on the basis of placing reliance on this representation that according to the complainant, the partnership agreement came into existence between complainant, the accused and one Zafer Madani. As per the agreement the complaint was to provide the finance, Zafar Madani to look after the production side in the factory and the petitioner-accused to look after the marketing side and to be incharge of the accounts. The said three partners had equal share in the profit and loss. In pursuance of the said agreement the business of the firm actually commenced from January 15, 1979. The complainant claims to have invested Rs. 41,209/- in the said business. The other partner Zafar however, left Bombay after the one month and therefore, in addition the complaint took over the responsibility of looking after the production side.

(3.) It is then alleged that without the complainants knowledge the petitioner opened an account in the Bank National Deparis, Kalbadevi Branch, Bomaby, in the name of Beauty print which was the proprietory concern of the petitioner independent of the partnership firm and he also represented to the bankers in his capacity as the propriety of the said private concern. According to the complainant, he was unaware of these developments though he had a lurking suspicion about the irregularities in respect of the monetary transaction, he made inquires and then learnt that an account has been opened by the petitioner-accused in the name of Beauty Print as his proprietory concern and not as a partnership firm and in which account several amount presumably from the partnership funds have been deposited.