SEKH ABDUL SOBUR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.M.T.C. Ltd. is a Government of India undertaking having its office inter alia at Ruby House, India Exchange Place, Calcutta. The petitioner Abdul Sobur was the proprietor of M/s. Narayanpur Agri and Agricultural Development Project having its office at Burdwan. M.M.T.C. entered into an agreement for handling agency with the petitioner on June 26, 1996. On perusal of the agreement it appears that M.M.T.C. was in need of a storage space in Burdwan from where they could distribute fertilizer to the farmers. Under the agreement petitioner was to provide storage space where M.M.T.C. would keep the fertilizer under care of the petitioner. Petitioner would act as handling agent and would deliver fertilizer from their godown to the customers of M.M.T.C. as per the delivery orders issued by M.M.T.C. In turn, petitioner would get commission as per the agreement. There were other terms and conditions that the parties were to fulfil under the agreement. M.M.T.C. alleges that the petitioners failed to furnish stock statement as required under the agreement and thereby misappropriated fertilizer provided by M.M.T.C. to the petitioner for the purpose of keeping the same in trust and, in turn, deliver the same to the customers of M.M.T.C. M.M.T.C. lodged a complaint with the Police under Section 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police took cognizance and initiated proceeding as against the petitioner. The complaint was lodged on November 21, 1997. The charge sheet was submitted on January 24, 1999. The charges were ultimately framed by the learned Magistrate and trial commenced. At that stage, petitioner approached the learned Judge for his discharge by making an application. The learned Judge vide order dated May 18, 2010 rejected the said application filed on December 15, 2008 by observing that there were sufficient materials against the accused persons for presuming that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Alternatively, they might be charged under Section 406/420 thereof as framed against them. The learned Judge of the special Court fixed dates of the trial, accordingly trial commenced. Being aggrieved by the said order dated May 18, 2010 the petitioner approached this Court inter alia praying for quashing of the said order dated May 18, 2010 as also the said proceeding.

(2.) MR. Sandip Ghosal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended as follows :-

(3.) OPPOSING the application Mr. Sib Shankar Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for M.M.T.C. contended as follows :-