SURENDER KUMAR Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 27.4.2010, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, by virtue of which the accused -Respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him.

(2.) THE factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this petition is that the complainant is running a shop in the name and style of M/s Arya Ghee Bhandar and he had kept the accused -Respondent as his worker. On 25.5.1998, the wife of the complainant fell ill and as such he has to look after her three months. In the meantime, the accused being the Manager of the firm of the complainant looked after the work of the shop. There was a stock of Rs.11,51,221/ - as on 1.6.1998 and goods worthRs.2,10,074/ - were purchased during the period from 1.6.1998 to 30.9.1998. The accused sold goods worth Rs. 6,98,424.50/ - to different persons and kept the money with him and misappropriated the same. The accused also took away cash amount of Rs. 38,892/ -. On the basis of these allegations, the Petitioner complainant filed a complaint. After preliminary evidence, the accused Respondent was summoned to face trial for committing the offence under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. To prove his case, the Petitioner examined three witnesses. Ultimately, charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After closure of the evidence, statement of accused -Respondent under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) was recorded and the accused examined Balram as D.W. 1 in his defence. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused -Respondent of the charges framed against him.

(3.) HAVING gone through the record, I find that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on the record. It is the case of the complainant that during the period from 1.6.1998 to 3.9.1998 the accused -Respondent sold the goods worth Rs. 6,98,424.50/ - to the retailers after issuing forged receipts and did not deposit the said amount in the account of the complainant, but he had not disclosed the name of any of the person to whom the said goods were allegedly sold by the accused - Respondent nor any witness had been examined by him in this regard. In the opinion of this Court present is the case of commercial transaction for which complainant could have filed the suit for rendition of account or recovery of outstanding amount. Ordinarily, civil/commercial dispute should not be permitted to be converted into the criminal offence.