DWIJEN DEKA Vs. LALITA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is brought to set aside the order by which learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta reversed the order passed by the trial court.

(2.) The petitioner and his father. Shri Parikshit Deka formed a partnership firm styled T1Kalpataru TheatreTT. It was registered in 1984-85. To run this Theatre they took a huge loan from Central Bank of India. The Opposite Party No.3 Lakheswar Kalita, was one of the guarantors for the Bank loan. The capital they raised from bank loan was not sufficient to mnage the theatre; so they took also a private loan of Rs.50,000/- on 4.9.85 from opposite party No.2. Harekrishna Das, by executing a document. Even after this loan it was not possible or them to manage so in January 1986 they handed over the theatre to opposite party No.3 on condition that he should run the theatre shows and pay the loan to Bank and return the theatre to them within the month of Chaitra. On this statement of facts the petitioner brought a complaint case on 15.2.86 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta by alleging that without his knowledge the opposite party No.3 transferred assets of the theatre to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 who in turn registered a new firm Diamand Theatre and that thereby the opposite parties committed the crimes punishable under sectionss/406/420/ I.P.C.

(3.) On recording the statement of the petitioner the Judicial Magistrate issued warrants against the opposite parties and issued search warrant to seize the materials of Kalpataru Theatre from the opposite parties and directed the police to give Zimma of the seized material so petitioner on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 3,00.000/-. He fixed 21.3.86 for appearance of the opposite parties. The police seized the materials on 18.2.86 from opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and gave them on Zimma to petitioner on executing a bond for the said sum. The opposite party No.2 is husband of the opposite party No. 1, Smt. Lalita Das. On 20 2.86 the opposite party No.2 filed application before the Judicial Magistrate stating that be was the proper person to get Zimma of the seized materials and praying for giving the Zimma to him. The learned Judicial Magistrate passed order on that date (20.2.86) that the application would be heard on the date fixed for appearance of the opposite parties, i.e. on 21.3.86. This date was too long for the opposite party No.2; so be moved a revision before the court of Sessions Judge, Barpeta, on 26.2.86. On that date the petitioner also appeared by caveat. The learned Sessions Judge admitted the revision and called for the case record by 5.3.86. He did not grant stay because the petitioner had taken the Zimma but directed the Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the application which the petitioner No.2 filed petition on 20.2.86. If he learned Judicial Magistrate sent the record, without disposing the said application.