AAMRIT LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Amrit Lal is one of the partners of M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills, Badhri Kalan, District Faridkot. As against the petitioner a complaint has been made as a result of which FIR No. 63 of 1995 has been recorded at Police Station Badhri Kalan. It pertains to an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. In the complaint it has been alleged that the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation has one of its office at Faridkot. It had been set up with various objectives including to undertake procurement, import, supply and distribution of such essential commodities as identified by the Government from time to time. For the purpose of procurement of rice from Central Pool, PUNSUP purchases paddy from the market. It was shelled from various rice millers. The Rice Millers supply the rice to Food Corporation of India on behalf of PUNSUP. The rice millers act as agents of PUNSUP. The paddy purchased and the rice obtained after shelling belongs to the Central Government. Neither PUNSUP nor Rice Millers can shell the paddy without permission of the Central Government. In the year 1994-95 M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills in which petitioner is a partner agreed to shell paddy of PUNSUP. It had to deliver the rice after shelling to Food Corporation of India. An agreement in this regard had been entered. On 17.11.1994 M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills, Badhni Kalan were entrusted with 87710 bags of paddy which had been received vide a receipt of 8.11.1994. The yield of rice from superfine quality of paddy is 67%. The petitioner who is a partner of M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills delivered only 500 bags of rice in February, 1985. The stock of paddy entrusted to and lying in the premises of M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills was verified on 20.10.1995. It was noticed that there was shortage of 25878 bags amounting to Rs. 77,55,775/-. On basis of these facts that there has been criminal breach of trust by unauthorisedly removing the above said bags, a case has been got registered for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.

(2.) BY virtue of the present petition, Amrit Lal petitioner seeks quashing of the first information report. It is contended that as per the agreement between the parties, the petitioner could only be made liable to pay the amount with interest. It is basically a civil dispute and thus the complaint under Section 406 IPC should be quashed. As per the petitioner no case under Section 406 IPC is drawn.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments referred to the agreement copy of which is Annexure P-1 to assert that basically it is a civil dispute pending between the parties and therefore, there was no occasion for attracting Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Attention of the Court was drawn to certain clauses of the agreement particularly paragraphs 5, 6(iii) and 10 of the agreement and on the strength of the same it was urged that it would not be possible to attract Section 406 IPC. The said clauses are being reproduced below for the sake of facility :-