JIWANMAL DUGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with the prayer for quashing the G. R. Case 671 of 1995, in which the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court Krishnagar, Nadia took cognizance on the basis of the chargesheet filed by the police after investigation under Section 420/34/120B, I.P.C. Out of the particular G. R. Case two revisional applications have been filed, namely, C.R.R. 1883 of 1997 and the other is C.R.R. 2689 of 1998. Both the cases were heard in part long back and on the prayer of the de facto complainant they were adjourned.

(2.) The learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant, namely, Mr. Milan Mukherjee on last Tuesday, on being enquired of by this Court agreed to complete the hearing of this particular case. Today when the matter is taken up, the learned Advocate for the petitioner is present and the junior of Mr. Mukherjee is present but he prays for short adjournment. As the matter is pending for a long in a part heard state and after hearing the arguments placed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as by the senior Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the private opposite party in part on the other day, I virtually find no justification to carry on with this particular matter for any indefinite period. Therefore the prayer for short adjournment as made by the learned Advocate Junior to Mr. Mukherjee cannot be conceded to and the matter is taken up for final decision. The learned senior Advocate Mr. Bose appearing for the petitioner has recapulated his submissions to draw up a clear picture of the facts and circumstances involved in this matter.

(3.) The facts in this case in short are as follows :-The private opposite (party) Sri Bhabananda Sahay and the present petitioner were in business terms in respect of raw jutes for more than ten years and in the past there was no such trouble between the parties. The private opposite party used to collect jutes from the growers and the middlemen and then used to supply the same to the petitioner company and the petitioner company used to issue 'Rukkas' on production of these, according to the business practice, the price of jute supplied, used to be paid by the petitioner to the private opposite party Shri Bhabanand Saha. The said Sri Saha supplied during the period from 1985 till 1992 raw jute to the petitioner companies under the same management worth about Rs. 9,94,515.05. It is an admitted fact that by 25-4-1995 Sri Bhabanand Saha received a sum of Rs. 6,24,000.00 out of the total value of jute supplied till 30th April, 1994 to Raj and Company. Naturally an amount of rupees two lakhs and odd were due from the petitioners. But the petitioners could not pay that amount as the agent of Titagarh Jute Mill through whom the petitioners used to supply the jutes to the mills also stopped payment of rupees twenty nine lakhsand odds. The Rukkas as such were issued in favour of Bhabanand Saha, could not be honoured by the petitioners, which fact of non-payment promoted Sri Bhabanand Saha to file the aforesaid G. R. Case. At first the I.O. of the case submitted the chargesheet under Section 422, I.P.C. making the observation that it was a breach of business contract, but the learned S.D.J.M. issued a notice to the other side as to why the chargesheet should not be accepted, that order was there with the ordersheet, while the said Magistrate was transferred from the station and his successor overlooking the particular order and on perusal of the chargesheet and the C. D. directed for reinvestigation and after fresh investigation the police submitted the present chargesheet under Section 420/34/120B, I. P. C.