AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amarjit Singh, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 38 dated 21.03.2012 at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana City, District Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under section 406 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been working for the complainant on commission basis. According to him, he was supplying the goods of the complainant to various customers and was receiving payment of those goods by way ofcheques drawn in the name of the complainant and he was handing over the cheques to the complainant. He has submitted that the petitioner never received any payment in cash and therefore, there is no question of his misappropriating any amount. He has further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are vague because the FIR does not mention as to what is the amount found lying in the account of the petitioner. He has further submitted that at the best the allegations constitute an offence punishable under section 403 IPC, which is bailable as well as noncognizance.

(3.) Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that huge amount had been deposited by the petitioner in his account and he had no explanation for that amount in his account. According to him, the clients of the complainant have given in writing that the payment had been made by them in cash also. He drew my attention in this regard to communication from Sudarshan Auto Industries.