PRADIP BAGLA Vs. DUAKEM PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present revisional application, order dated January 12, 2018 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court at Calcutta in connection with C.S. Case No. 0117617 of 2016 under sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code is assailed.

(2.) The petitioner's contention, in a nutshell, is that the opposite party lodged written complaint against him and another before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging inter alia, commission of offence punishable under sections 420/120B of the Penal Code to the effect that the petitioner, being the Director, Chief Executive and/or person in charge, in control and/or responsible for the affairs of the company in the name and style of M/s Farmvile Agrovet Ltd. (arrayed as an accused in the complaint) approached the complainant/opposite party company for supplying pharmaceutical items accompanied by assurance of prompt payment. Sensing the hesitance of the complainant company to supply goods on credit, the accused made an initial payment of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand only) following which the complainant company supplied goods valued at Rs. 1, 80,496/- to the accused company which were duly received by the latter in good condition and commercially utilised. After adjusting the initial payment of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand only) a sum of Rs. 1, 55,496/- was due and the complainant company made repeated demands for clearance of such dues. Upon failure of the accused company to keep its promise, the complainant issued notice to the accused company addressed to the petitioner through its learned advocate on 02-11-2015 which was received by the accused company on 03-11-2015 despite which the accused company failed and neglected to clear the dues. The complainant company, therefore, lodged complaint against the accused company and the petitioner under sections 420/120B of the Penal Code.

(3.) The case was transferred to the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Calcutta and pursuant to issuance of summons, the petitioner appeared before the said court and filed an application praying for his discharge from the case under section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon hearing the parties, the learned trial court rejected the prayer of the petitioner by the order impugned.