PRITHVI SINGH RAO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of the order received from Magpie Concerns of which petitioner Prithvi Singh Rao claims to be a Director, respondent No. 2 despatched to them cotton yarn valued at Rs. 15,14,383.60 through M/s. Prem Road Lines on 10th May, 1984. Prior thereto another consignment of cotton yarn valued at Rs. 2,12,260/- had also been despatched by respondent No. 2 to the same concern through the same carrier on 5th April, 1984. Invoices and bills for both the consignments were delivered by respondent No. 2 to M/s. Overseas Bank, Bhatinda, for collection of the money due thereon from Magpie Concerns before they obtained delivery of the goods from the carrier on their basis.

(2.) VIDE letter MEIL/84/158 dated 10th May, 1984 addressed by Magpie Concerns to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Bhatinda Branch, they obtained from the Bank a short respite for making payment of Rs. 17,26,643.60 due from them on the basis of invoices and bills aforesaid and in the meantime collected the goods from the carrier, made use of them for the desired purpose of weaving and misappropriated them by refusing to make payment for those goods either to the Bank or to vendor. The vendor, therefore, filed against them represented by accused No. 4 to 7 and the carrier represented by accused 1 to 3, a criminal complaint under Sections 120-B, 402, 407, 420, 424 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned trial Court. Shri Kuldip Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhatinda, summoned all the seven accused before himself for 13th March, 1985 vide order dated 29th January, 1985 to stand trial under Sections 120-B and 407 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE law is now well settled, complaint Annexure P.4 having disclosed prima facie against Magpie Concerns and the carriers both, for misappropriation of goods valued at Rs. 17,26,643.60, learned trial Court did well in making the summoning order Annexure P.5. In line with the observations made in Emperor v. Khawja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1954 Privy Council 18, I see no ground to quash the proceedings. The petitioners may, if they are so advised, seek against the complainant-respondent No. 2 their own remedy for the recovery of Rs. 22,98,105.00 allegedly due to them from respondent No. 2. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3897-M of 1985 is thus rendered bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order accordingly.