SARAT CHANDRA DEHURY Vs. SANKIRTAN BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was accused in I.C.C. Case No. 3 of 1983 instituted by the opposite party making allegations of commission of offences under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. After enquiry under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure the complaint petition was dismissed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate. The opposite party preferred a revision which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, who directed taking of cognizance of an offence under Section 409 I.P.C. The above order has been challenged in this revision.

(2.) THE facts of the case in short are that the Petitioner was acting as the Sarpanch of Kaintaragarh Grama Panchayat which managed the ferry ghat at Kuleswar on river Mahanadi. In the year 1982 -83 at the highest bid of the opposite party of the sum of Rs. 14,000/ -, the ferry ghat was leased out to him. Out of the amount, he had paid Rs. 8000/ - and a sum of Rs. 6000/ - was outstanding on him. Therefore, notices were served on the opposite party from the Grama Panchayat office for payment of the balance on or before 5.2.1983 in default of which he was prohibited to operate the ferry. The opposite party, however, could not make the deposit by the date fixed. On 6.2.1983 at about 6 a.m. the Petitioner came to the river ghat and prohibited the opposite party from operating the ferry. He himself operated the same and realised a sum of Rs. 500/ - from passengers. In the meanwhile the opposite party went home, pledged the necklace of his wife for a sum of Rs. 4000/ - and came back to the ferry ghat. It is alleged that he paid the sum of Rs. 4000/ - to the Petitioner, but when he demanded a receipt the latter asked him to come to the Grama Panchayat office to receive the same. The opposite party on subsequent dates came to the Grama Panchayat office and demanded the receipt for Rs. 4500/ - which had been received by the Petitioner, but the latter did not grant the receipt, did not deposit the said amount in the Grama Panchayat office cash and misappropriated the same. In view of the above facts, the opposite party filed a complaint petition alleging commission of offences by the Petitioner under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C.

(3.) MR . N.C. Pati raised the following contentions.