JASWANT RAI JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is alleged to have defrauded the Government in receiving payment of Rs. 23359 10 in March 1970, as the price of gypsum for the supply of which he had entered into a contract with the Government. According to the allegations made against him he vide Consignment Receipt Nos. 4581 to 4583, initially consigned 360 tones of gypsum with M/s. Goods Transport Corporation, Ganga Shahar Road, Bikaner, for being delivered at the specified points, but subsequently got it back from the said Transport Company on the plea that since the goods were below specification he did not want these to be delivered to the Government and that he had lost the consignment receipts issued in his favour by the Company. The Transport Company after securing a bond from him returned the goods, i.e, gypsum to him, On the basis of these consignment receipts lac received the above noted payment from the Government in the light of these allegations a case under section 420 I.P.C. was registered against him on June 6, 1980. The trial Court after recording evidence in the case ultimately discharged him. That. order of the trial Magistrate was successfully impugned by the State before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind,. who while setting aside the order of the Magistrate, remanded the case to him for further enquiry after framing the necessary charge. The petitioner impugns this order of the Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) IT is not in dispute before me and is rather conceded in the impugned order itself that prior to the registration of the case there were arbitration proceedings between the parties, i.e., the State and the petitioner in terms of the original agreement of supply made by the latter in favour of the former and the petitioner had made good the loss that the State might have suffered. These proceedings, however, concluded some time after the registration of the case. Taking these proceedings into consideration and more particularly the civil nature of the dispute the trial Court declined to frame a charge against the petitioner and thus, as already indicated, discharged him. The Additional Sessions Judge has, however taken a contrary view by expressing the opinion that in spite of those proceedings the petitioner could not be absolved of his criminality. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge took a very hypertechnical view of the whole matter. Besides this the matter itself is almost 17 years old by now as the alleged fraud concededly was committed in March, 1970. In view of this I allow this petition and while setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, uphold that of the trial Magistrate. Petition allowed.