PRITAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s J.S. Kundlas Rice Mills, Behrampur was engaged in the business of shelling paddy. It had entered into an agreement on 5.11.1985 with Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation (for short Markfed) for the purpose of shelling paddy. In the year 1985-86, the firm was entrusted with 36866 bags of paddy of I.R.8 (quality) weighing 23962.90 Qtls. and 10680 bags of P.R. (quality) weighing 6942 Qtls. for the purpose of shelling the same. As per the agreement, the firm was bound to return the rice after milling the same. However, the petitioner, instead of delivering the rice to the F.C.I., sold the rice in the black market and thereby embezzled an amount to the tune of Rs. 2,26,636.70. As the rice was not delivered a complaint was made by the District Manager, Markfed, Ludhiana to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. Accordingly, it was found that an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code had been committed by the firm, its partners and its employees Salesman Sukhdarshan Singh and Gursharan Singh, Senior Branch Officer, Machhiwara. An FIR was registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) MR . Sapra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that firstly there was arbitration clause in the agreement between the petitioner and the Markfed, according to which, in case of dispute, the matter was to be referred to an Arbitrator. Learned counsel has relied upon Clause V of the agreement, which is produced below :

(3.) LEARNED State counsel has argued that a prima facie case is made out against the accused under the aforesaid Sections. The petitioner was given the rice for shelling paddy and as per the agreement, he was to return the same to the Markfed, and the petitioner having failed to do so cheated the Markfed.