SABYASACHI RAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 3559 of 2007 allowing the recall petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and summoning P.Ws. 1 and 8 for adducing further evidence. The brief facts of the present case is that one Barinder Singh, General Manager (East), Commercial, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd. (O.P. 2) lodged an F.I.R. implicating the petitioner as an accused on 8.9.2007 which was registered as Mancheswar P.S. Case No. 220 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 406/407/420/468/506 I.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the accused -petitioner was a Branch Commercial Manager of the company and he instructed the transporter (M/s. Trident Carriers and Commercials) to raise false bills and accordingly, four bills were submitted by the transporter in the month of February, 2007 and March 2007 to the tune of Rs. 2,27,015/ -, even though no such services had been provided by the transporter. It is further alleged that the transporter received three cheques from the company and after encashing the cheques, handed over the encashed amount to the petitioner. It is further alleged that the transporter also prepared two more false bills in the month of August, 2007 on the instruction of the petitioner which were not cleared. There was an internal audit of the company at its Bhubaneswar Branch during August, 2007 wherein it was found that the transporter has submitted false bills without any supporting documents and had also received payment to that effect. Accordingly, the informant visited the Bhubaneswar Branch office and ascertained from the transporter regarding such false bills and also about receiving cheques from the company at the instance of the petitioner. A meeting was called by the informant at the Branch Office, wherein the petitioner is stated to have confessed about his guilt and undertook to repay the amount in question with a condition that he should not be terminated from service and also threatened that in case he is terminated, the company officials would face dire consequences.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner asserted that the Magistrate had failed to apply his judicial mind to the issue at hand and passed the order placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tikayat Routray & others, : (2009) 43 OCR 268 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd., : (2008) 41 OCR (SC) -221 holding that when the prosecution wants to prove certain original documents, for the "interest of justice" and for "just decision" of the matter, such petition should be allowed.