RATAN KAPILA Vs. STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the complaint of Jaswant Sidhu, FIR No. 72 dated 27.6.1998 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC was registered by Police Station E.O. Wing, Manimajra, Chandigarh. The complainant has stated therein that the Directors of Marigold Leasing (India) Limited-Rajesh Sayal, Dr. Sukhdev Kaushal and Om Chand Parwal inducted the complainant to invest money in the scheme known as Panch Shikha, stating he will get huge profits after 2-1/2 years and that he paid Rs. 60,000/- in cash to the Accounts Officer at the instance of Dr. Sukhdev Kaushal and got a receipt dated 13.12.1994. It is also alleged in the complaint that after the expiry of 2-1/2 years, when he approached the Directors-Rajesh Sayal, Dr. Sukhdev Kaushal and Om Chand Parwal and the Administrators-Ratan Kapila (the petitioner herein) and O.P. Gupta, they put off the matter on lame excuses. According to the complainant, on 13.6.1997, when he met Dr. Sukhdev Kaushal, Om Chand Parwal and petitioner- Ratan Kapila and O.P. Gupta, they issued a cheque of even date for Rs. 60,000/-, which when presented for encashment, was returned for want of sufficient funds. Petitioner-Ratan Kapila was arrested. He, therefore, moved an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail before the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who declined him the relief on the ground that the petitioner was in active management of the company and that in connivance with each other, the petitioner and others had committed breach of trust and embezzled Rs. 12 lakhs. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner did not make any inducement to the complainant to invest money and that he is also not a Director or a Manager, but was only an employee of the company whose services have also been terminated. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that even on the allegations found in the complaint, it is evident that the transaction mentioned creates only a civil liability for breach of contract and no criminal act is also attributed to him. The learned Sessions Judge has also pointed out that the investment was not personally received by the applicant from the investor. But, he had only pointed out that from the statement of the witnesses recorded, it was seen that the petitioner was in active management of the company. The petitioner had alleged that he is neither a Director, nor a Manager, but was only an employee. The prosecution has not been able to show as to how the petitioner was in active management. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.