SANWARMAL RUNGTA Vs. DILIP KR ROY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) is is an application under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing of a proceeding being C.R. Case No. 109 of 1993 pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. The said revisional application is moved at the instance of the petitioner who is figuring as accused No. 4 in terms of the petition of complaint appended to the revisional application as Annexure 'A'. The charges sought to be levelled against the petitioner are under section 407 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 120B of the same. The quashing of the proceeding has been prayed for by Mr. Bose, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revisional petitioner and according to him the ingredients as envisaged under section 407 of the Indian Penal Code are not fulfilled. While making a casual look to the provision of section 407 of the Indian Penal Code it appears that it includes within its ambit the essential element of entrustment of the property as a carrier or warehouse keeper commits criminal breach of trust. The submission of Mr. Bose is that there is no valid entrustment of the same in favour of the petitioner. This Court has the occasion to pursue the petition of complaint and reference can be made to paragraph 6 thereof wherefrom it appears that the same was entrusted with the said seized stocks of tea and to the sale custody of accused No. 1 who is a body corporate being a juristic entity, namely, one Falakata Industries Limited a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The said accused No. 1 may be juristic person in the eye of law but he is not a living person as such and it will be required to be manned and dominated over by persons who are in charge of the said juristic entity. There is specific averment that the seized goods were entrusted with the juristic entity who is not a living person but where the accused Nos. 2 to 4 have dominion and control over the same. Accused No. 4 is the revisionist petitioner before this Court. A further reference may be made to paragraph 12 of the complaint from where it appears that a specific averment that the company was controlled and managed by other persons who were in-charge and were responsible to the accused No. 1 for the conduct of the business of the company and there was further reference that in terms of the condition of entrustment, accused Nos. 2 to 5 although having full knowledge they have seized stock of tea from witness No. 1 as warehouse keeper on certain terms and conditions but they most illegally and dishonestly appropriated the entire stock of the seized goods. Here the revisional Court is not oblivious of the fact that all the persons have been roped in under section 120B which is criminal conspiracy with regard to the commission of an alleged offence under section 407. The expression physical entrustment as contemplated under section 407 cannot be rated as per is not entrustment made in favour of a juristic entity which in turn is deemed to be an entrustment in favour of a person who is managing and controlling the said juristic entity which means a conscious effort of acts of accomplice on the part of living person actively associated with the juristic entity. A reference was made by Mr. Bose, the learned Advocate of the petitioner to the case of Ashoke Chaturvedi and Ors. v. S.H. Chancharli and Ors., 1998 CrLJ 4091 which deals with the question of cognizance of offence in respect of a charge formulated under section 463 of the Indian Penal Code relating to forgery. Here, the question involved is that of question of criminal breach of trust by person associated with a juristic entity and how far the question of entrustment to the juristic entity will boil down to the level of animate persons who are controlling and managing the affairs relating to the juristic entity. Therefore, in view of the said allegations made in the petition of complaint where reference was made about the revisionist petitioner about his actual control and domination of day-to-day business of the company figuring as accused No. 1. This Court feels that it is not a fit case where revisional application should be entertained for quashing of proceeding which are distinguishable on construction of the provisions of section 407 and with regard to the meaning of the expression 'entrustment' as contained therein.

(2.) Accordingly, for the aforesaid reason, the revisional application stands liable to be summarily dismissed.