KRISHNA BHGWAN SHARMA Vs. VIJAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Cr.R. No. 394/08 which has been filed by the respondent No. 3 against the order dated 30.1.2008 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah District Morena of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Morena in Criminal Revision No. 162/07, whereby the case was remanded against the respondent No. 3 for taking cognizance, present petition has been filed.

(2.) IN short, case of the petitioner was that the petitioner is farmer and a businessman. It was alleged that on 14.4.2004, 50 bags of mustard were kept by the petitioner in the warehouse being run by the respondent No. 1. It was alleged that the receipt was issued by the respondent No. 1 for depositing the mustard as stated above to the petitioner. It was alleged that since the petitioner was in need of money, therefore, the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the Bank against the security of aforesaid mustard, where the respondent No. 2 was posted as manager. Further case of the petitioner was that the loan amount was repaid by the petitioner on 10.7.2006 and receipt issued by the respondent No. 1 was delivered by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. It was alleged that respondent No. 3 in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2 took delivery of mustard illegally which was kept by the petitioner. It was alleged that all the respondents have committed offences punishable under sections 420, 409 and 120B of IPC. It was prayed that after taking cognizance, respondents be convicted. After recording of the statements, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against which a revision petition was filed which was allowed in part and the order passed by the learned trial Court was set aside in part, whereby the cognizance was taken against the respondent No. 3 while the order of dismissal of complaint against the respondent No. 2 was maintained.

(3.) SHRI Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 took the delivery of the mustard illegally in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2. It is submitted that since custody of mustard was given by the respondents No. 1 and 2, therefore, the revisional Court committed error in directing the trial Court, to take cognizance only against the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and that part of the order whereby the cognizance was not taken against the respondents No. 1 and 2 be set aside.