PRANAB BARUA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS misc. case has been filed seeking quashing of the order of the cognizance dated 2.8.99 passed in Complaint case no. 114/99.

(2.) PETITIONER 's lawyer submitted that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Rackitt and Colman of India Limited, Chowringaee Road, Calcutta. As alleged by the complainant, opposite party no. 2 Mr. Binay Kumar Singhania, complainant had purchased share certificates from petitioner's company. The share certificates were despatched to the complainant but the envelope containing certificates were tampered with during the course of transit and the letter which accompanied the share certificates was received by the complainant. Later the complainant came to know that share certificates were attempted to be transferred to accused no. 4, C.B. Mathumam under the forged signature of the complainant and his brother in whose names shares were purchased. 300 shares were purchased and 200 shares were attempted to be transferred to C.B. Mathuman. The complaint addressed letter to the concerned company denying his signature on the alleged letter indicating purported transfer regarding share certificate. The complainant then prosecuted the petitioner and opposite parties no. 3, 4 and 5 of this misc. case in complaint case no. 114/99.

(3.) BEFORE I refer to the merit of this misc. case, I would like to refer to certain decisions which the petitioner's lawyer submitted for his relief sought for in this misc. case. In this connection, a decision reported in AIR 1992 (SC) 1815 was cited. The facts of this case, were that the complainant of this case was a guarantor for loan by the concerned company and he had deposited certain fixed deposits as guarantee to the concerned bank and it was stipulated in the guarantee paper that in case of failure of repayment of the loan from the loanee, the Bank shall be at liberty to realise the amount from the fixed deposits which were secured by the complainant at its maturity. The realization of the loan from the loanee became time barred and so when the bank realised the amount from the fixed deposits of the complainant and credited the remaining amount into the account of the complainant, it was alleged that the bank had committed criminal breach of trust; because when the loan had become time -barred its realization by the bank was also time barred. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that although realization of the loan amount from the loanee was time barred, the Bank committed no offence, if it realised the loan amount from the fix deposits of the complainant which was secured as a security. The facts of the aforesaid case are entirely different from the facts of this case. It is so because when the loan becomes time barred, filing of a suit becomes time barred. Realization of the loan amount does not become time barred by any other means and since the fixed deposit schemes of the complainant were secured as guarantee, the bank committed no offence in realizing the amount from the fixed deposit of the complainant.