SRI JEETENDRA KUMAR MEDIRATTA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal revision petition has been filed by Sri Jeetendra Kumar Mediratta -Petitioner herein seeking challenge of an order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. No. 32 of 1994 whereby, the Court below rejected the present Petitioner's application for discharge.

(2.) IT is stated by the Petitioner that on 18.8.1994 a suo motu F.I.R. was drawn up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI under which a case under Section 120 -B/406 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against M/s Doaba Industrial and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (In short "DITCO") and M/s Marine Consultants and Surveyor Ltd. (in short "MARCONS"). It appears that in the said F.I.R. it was alleged that DITCO and MARCONS entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and in pursuant to said conspiracy they misappropriate value 52.809 M.Ts of Aluminium ingots amounting to Rs. 32.7 lakhs during the period of 1992 -93. It further appears that National Aluminium (in short "NALCO") had engaged DITCO as their Clearing and Forwarding Agent at Paradip Port to look after the export of their aluminium ingots during 1991 -93 grid a written agreement dated 20.6.1991 had been executed between the parties for the said work, Basing on the F.I.R. investigation was carried out by the DSP, CBI and after completion of the investigation Charge Sheet (C.S.) was submitted on 31.3.1995 in which DITCO and one Mr. P.R. Maniktala, Director -cum -General Manager, DITCO were shown as accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for committing offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 2. Sri P.R. Maniktala thereafter filed an application for discharge before the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Bhubaneswar, which was rejected on 29.10.1996 and challenge thereto was made before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 543 of 1996.," This Court disposed of the said revision vide its judgment dated 19.8.2002 allowing both Criminal Misc. Case No 503 of 1997 and Criminal Revision No. 543 of 1996 in part to the extent included in the judgment. The judgment in the case of P.R. Maniktala v. CBI has been reported in, 2002 (Supp.) OLR 309. In the concluding, paragraph -12 of the said judgment, this Court passed the following directions:

(3.) MR . S.D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must first prove "entrustment" with the property or dominion over the property. So far as this criteria is concerned it is admitted in the present revision petition, that NALCO had entrusted the work of shipment of its aluminium ingots to DICTO and therefore DITCO had dominion over the property, of NALCO. But it is contended that mere entrustment with the property or dominion over the property will not suffice to bring home the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution is further required to prove that such person with whom the property has been entrusted or who have dominant over the property acted dishonesty or misappropriate or converted the same for its own use resulting in wilful sufferance to any other person. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any evidence to justify any dishonesty misappropriation or conversion for his own use no prosecution against the present Petitioner could be maintained.