GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gurcharan Singh son of Gulzar Singh has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co -accused, vide FIR No. 218 dated 15.12.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, by the police of Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. The crux of the prosecution version, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that, the Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation Ltd. (for brevity "the complainant -Corporation") has supplied 1,00,972 bags (weighing 35 Kgs. each) of 'A' grade paddy to the firm of petitioner M/s. Sohal Rice Mills, for custom milling for the year 2010 -11. The firm acknowledged the receipt of the paddy and was required to return the rice of the same 'A' quality to the complainant -Corporation within the stipulated period. Instead of returning the A -grade quality of rice of required quantity, the firm of the petitioner returned a very less quantity (weight) of rice. The remaining stock of paddy 84896 bags, weighing 19,908 quintals, was stated to have been misappropriated by the firm causing a huge loss to the complainant -Corporation amounting to of Rs. 3,99,03,395/ - in this regard.

(2.) LEVELING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioner along with his other co -accused has cheated, misappropriated the indicated bags of rice of complainant -Corporation and thus they have committed the criminal breach of trust and pointed offences. In the backgrounds of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of District Manager of the complainant -Corporation, the instant case was registered against the accused, in the manner depicted here -in -above.

(3.) EX facie, the arguments of learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and since there is an arbitration clause in the agreement and no offences in question are made out against him, so, he is entitled to concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well.