NARINDER KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Criminal Misc. No. 31002-M of 1998 whereby Narinder Kumar and Anil Kumar, petitioners have prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 363 dated 25.10.1998 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Ladwa.

(2.) The prosecution case being projected by Mahavir Prashad of M/s Gita Ram Mahavir Prashad runs as under :

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR is vague inasmuch as no date or year is mentioned when the alleged paddy was allegedly handed over to them for milling and no weight of paddy is mentioned in the FIR. It is also not mentioned in the FIR as to how much rice was to be delivered after paddy was milled. It was further submitted that nobody can mill paddy into rice unless he is given a licence by the Department of Food and Supplies for the milling of paddy into rice. So far as petitioners are concerned, they are simply Pakka Arhtiyas, licensed to sell and purchase of agricultural produce under Section 10 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1961 while complainant concern does not hold a licence under Rule 17(i) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Rules and as such they cannot get the paddy milled. It was further submitted that at the time of purchasing paddy from the farmer by the firm of the petitioners, the payment to the farmer is made by the Commission Agent and against this bill purchaser makes the payment subsequently. In the financial year 1996-97, the total paddy purchased by the petitioners was worth Rs. 5,60,000/- and the payment was made for the same through cheques running to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs. It was submitted that Ved Parkash belongs to the rival faction of the petitioners. Not only Ved Parkash has put forth M/s Gita Ram Mahavir Prashad against the petitioners, he has put forth many others against them namely M.R. Singhal, Jeewan Dass, Ranjit Singh and Harbans Lal, who have filed similar complaints against them.