PRADIP KR ROY Vs. GHULAM RABBANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order, dated 4.09.1997, passed in Complaint Case No. 1258C/1995, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, has discharged the three accused-opposite party herein, namely, 1. Sri Pradip Kr. Roy, 2. Sri Bardhan Chandra Naga and 3. Sri Arijit Dutta of the offences allegedly committed by them under Sections 408/420/34 IPC.

(2.) The case of the complainant, as unfolded at the trail, may in brief, be stated as follows :- M/s. PK Trading is a partnership firm, which has authorised the complainant, Sri PR Roy, to file a complaint on behalf of the firm on the strength of a power of attorney executed by the firm. The three accused persons, namely, 1. Sri Pradip Kr. Roy, 2. Sri Bardhan Chandra Nag and 3. Sri Arijit Dutta were employees of the said firm, the accused No. 2 being the Manager of the complainant firm. From M/s Mangilal Sarmah of Boingaigaon, one of the customers of the complainant firm, the accused No. 1, namely, Sri Pradip Kr. Roy, collected, on behalf of the complainant firm, a sum of Rs. 50,000A in cash, on 10-07-1995, for supply of cement. Out of the amount so collected by the accused No. 1, the accused No. 1 handed over, on the instructions of the accused No. 2, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to accused No. 3, received an acknowledgement in respect of receipt of the said amount and kept the same in the office file of the complainant firm. On the instructions of the accused No. 2, the accused No. 1 retained the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/- for office expenses. On coming to know that the accused persons, despite having received the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- from M/s Mangilal Sarmah, had not deposit the said sum with the complainant firm and had also not reflected entry thereof in the relevant books of account of the complainant firm, the complainant firm issued a notice addressed to the accused No. 1, who, in turn, sent, on 1-02-1996, a reply (Ext.2) admitting the fact that on 10-0/-1995, he had collected Rs. 50,000/- from M/s Mangilal Sarmah on the instructions of the accused No. 2 and when he had brought the money to the office, the accused No. 2 had instructed the accused No. to hand over, out of the said sum of Rs. 50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to accused No. 3 and accordingly, the accused No. 1 had handed over Rs. 15,000/- to the accused No. 3 and obtained receipt in acknowledgement of the said amount by the accused No. 3 and kept the said receipt in the file of the complainant firm. In his reply aforementioned, the accused No. 1 also claimed that he had retained the remaining amount of Rs. 35,000/- as per the instructions of accused No. 2, but as the office was closed on 16-08-1995 and he had not received his salary, house rent, etc., since June, 1995, he adjusted the same against his dues. After receiving the reply, dated 01-06-1996, the complainant firm instituted the complaint aforementioned.

(3.) During trial, the complainant examined three witnesses including the complainant, Sri PK Roy, who held the power of attorney on behalf of the complainant firm. After recording the evidence before charge, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order discharging the accused-opposite party.