TUFAIL MOHAMMAD MALIK Vs. MAHADEV SINGH SHEKHAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint dated 17.12.1991 filed by the respondent and order dated 7.4.1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial in that complaint for an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. The brief facts necessary for the decision of this petition are that M/s. Deepak Spinners Limited manufactured acrylic yarn and polyster viscose yarn having its factory at Baddi, District Solan and its office at Daresi Road, Ludhiana, to deal with the yarn of that unit. The company had godowns near Samrala Chowk and complainant Mahadev Singh was the in charge of Ludhiana Branch. He dealt with the product of the Company i.e. received the yarn from the unit and gave it in the market for doubling it. The petitioner was running a unit under the name and style of Malik Textile Private Limited for doing the job work of doubling the yarn and had a factory in Malerkotla. He was the Managing Director and his three sons were the Directors. He approached the complainant in Ludhiana office and offered to do the work after improving the quantity of the job work and further agreed to return the yarn within a period of three weeks of the receipt of the same at Ludhiana. He also agreed to return the goods at Ludhiana. From 2.7.1991 to 24.7.1991 the yarn as per details given in para No. 4 of the complaint was entrusted to the petitioner for doing the job work and out of the same two consignments of finished yarn weighing about 57 tons were returned. The balance yarn weighing 13,701.2 kilograms was not returned by the petitioner and the same was embezzled with mala fide intention to deprive the complaintant-company of the huge amount and the costs of the goods. The goods were sent to the petitioner through public carrier as agreed upon earlier and the receipt of the goods was duly acknowledged by Malik Textiles after sending the challans.

(2.) IN support of the allegations in the complaint the complainant made his own statement and produced challans. The trial Court found that a prima facie case under Section 406, Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused and the accused was summoned, which led to the filing of the present petition.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondent the averments made in the petition were denied and it was submitted that on 24th November, 1991, a meeting was held between the parties regarding the dispute which arose for non-return of acrylic yarn and in that meeting it was admitted by the petitioner that 13,701.2 kilograms of yarn was still lying with him and now it could not be said that the yarn was returned earlier to that meeting. The proceedings of the meeting were reduced into writing and the copy of the minutes was Annexure R-1. It was denied that there was an agreement regarding the quantity of yarn to be supplied daily to the petitioner.