RABINDRA LELE AND ORS. Vs. GEORGE BHAKTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Code for brevity. The accused persons in ICC No. 92 of 1998 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Panposh, Rourkela assail the order dated 18-10-2000 passed by the said Court taking cognizance of offences under Sections 425, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860, hereinafter referred to as the IPC for brevity and issuing processes against the petitioners.

(2.) The matter already had a chequered career. The essential facts leading to filing this case are that the opposite party-complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code against the present petitioners alleging commission of offences under Sections 425, 468 and 471 of the IPC on the foundation that the complainant-Managing Director of Ores India (P) Ltd. had approached the accused persons for supply of machine and equipment for establishing Iron Ore Crusher Unit at village Regalveda in the district of Sundargarh with the financial assistance from the Orissa State Financial Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the OSFC' for brevity. The accused persons were willing to supply the machinery and equipment and therefore persuaded the complainant to place the purchase order in their favour and the complainant placed the purchase order on 23-10-1997. it was stipulated in the said purchase order that the accused persons apart from other things, had agreed to provide designing and drawing for complete plant within 15 months with guarantee from the date of dispatch. On the basis of the purchase order the complainant sent the cheque for Rs. 15 lakhs and as alleged after receipt of the said money, the accused persons sent their written confirmation to the OSFC acknowledging the receipt of money. The OSFC, in turn paid Rs. 25 lakhs to the accused persons as an advance keeping in view the commitment made by the complainant.

(3.) The complaint-petition reveals that in spite of such substantial amount paid by way of advance, no steps were taken by the accused persons to ensure supply of machinery and equipment with an ulterior motive. as a consequence of which, the complainant suffered huge loss. It is ascertained in the complaint petition that with the intention to cause wrongful loss and damage to the complainant, the accused persons procured a letterhead pad of the complainant from a staff of the company and typed a letter thereon with the signature of George Bakhtan for which they would get extension from the OSFC regarding the date of purchase. It is further alleged that the accused persons entered into a conspiracy and received the monetary benefit and eventually machineries were not supplied. In that background, the complainant filed a complaint for the offences which have been mentioned hereinbefore. On the basis of the complaint, initial statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of the Code and an enquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code for the aforesaid Sections were taken. Such order has been passed by the learned SDJM Panposh on 10-11-1998, which was challenged by the accused persons in an application under Section 482 of the Code and the same has been registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 970 of 1999. The said application was disposed of on 12-5-2000. By virtue of reasoned order, this Court quashed the order of cognizance as it is not maintainable on the available statement of the complainant and his witnesses. However, this Court gave a chance to the complainant to fill up deficiency of evidence regarding existence of a prima facie case and directed that the complainant shall appear in the Court of learned SDJM, Panposh and shall file application expressing his intention to adduce further evidence in the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. It was also directed that if any such application is filed by the complainant the learned SDJM shall do well to allow the same and to afford reasonable opportunity of leading evidence at the stage of enquiry. The Court further stipulated that if the complainant desires to re-examine himself and the witnesses he may be permitted and on completion of enquiry the learned SDJM shall carefully peruse the statement of evidence and pass appropriate order. In accordance with the order passed by this Court the complainant appeared before the learned SDJM Panposh, and on 8-9-2000. the complainant re-examined himself under Section 202 of the Code. He did not examine any other witness. On this additional matter, the learned SDJM, Panposh, as per the order dated 18-10-2000 took cognizance of offences as mentioned hereinabove and issued processes to the accused persons.