BRAJABANDHU BEHERA Vs. BARGARH CEMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 2.12.2004 and also the entire proceeding in ICC No.68 of 2002 pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh with the prayer to quash the same under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(2.) The unravelled story of the prosecution case is that the petitioner joined as Manager in M/s.IDCOL Cement Ltd. in March, 1996 and subsequently w.e.f. 1.3.1998 he was posted as Zonal Manager at Bhubaneswar and was looking after the sales promotion of IDCOL Brand cement. It is alleged, inter alia, that the accused in his full capacity by letter dated 25.11.1998 forwarded the application dated 23.11.1998 of one Amiya Kanta Nayak introducing him as Proprietor of M/s.Nayak Construction, Ballibhagat Road, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack.He had also signed on the copy of the Contractor Licence issued by the Superintending Engineer, P.H.Circle in the name of Amiya Kanta Nayak along with work order purported to have been awarded the construction work under the Project Engineer, Project Management, Unit-II, Cuttack, Kendrapara, OWS & SB in favour of M/s.Nayak Construction. The petitioner has also intimated that a Bank Draft of Rs. 18,000/- was deposited. On 26.11998 the accused sent a letter intimating that M/s.Nayak Construction was awarded work at Kakatpur by Executive Engineer, OWS & SB, Cuttack and the requirement of cement for that job was 24000 bags. In order to show the genuineness of such transaction, he sent the letter bearing No.1792 dated 26.11998 alleged to have been written by the Project Engineer, Project Management, Unit-I, OWS & SB, Cuttack. Subsequently on 11.1.1999 the petitioner intimated about deposit of Bank Draft and Post-dated cheque along with letter dated 11.1.1999 of the said M/s.Nayak Constructions recommending to supply cement to M/s.Nayak Constructions. Like this, he forwarded letters dated 14.1.1999 and 21.1.1999 purportedly written by Amiya Kanta Nayak.

(3.) In the meantime, the complainant found that the petitioner deceived the complainant-company fraudulently and induced the complainant-company to deliver cement to his own arranged men and by that he gained himself illegally to show existence of one Amiya Kanta Nayak knowing fully well that no such person or account holder was actually in existence. Since the petitioner had dishonestly and fraudulently writing his letter of introduction since 25.1.1998 cheated the complainant-company to deliver cement on all dates of lifting cement till last lifting i.e. on 9.1.2000 and by sending fake cheque, which was dishonoured. The complainant-company lodged a complaint for the offence under Sections 420/468/471 of IPC and basing on the complaint, initial statement of the complainant was recorded by the learned SDJM, Bargarh and issued process against the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition to quash the same.