AJAY PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) The petitioner was the Executive Director of BISCOMAUN at the relevant time when the occurrence is said to have taken place. In the complaint petition, it is specifically alleged that the BISCOMAUN had asked the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 to supply certain products on 30.01.1988 and 03.02.1988. It is further stated in the complaint petition that part payment was made with respect to the products supplied which is set out at paragraph 13 of the complaint petition. Apparently, the complainant had received Rs. 5,44,186.56 against the total due of Rs. 11,52,572.41. It has further been stated that the Cane Commissioner, Government of Bihar made full payment to the BISCOMAUN for the supply of the goods. However, BISCOMAUN did not in its turn make full payment to the complainant.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner refers to an order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 8091 of 1990 wherein the complainant had moved this Court making a prayer that the Court may pass an order asking the Cane Commissioner to make payment of the pesticides supplied by the complainant. The Writ Court has passed an order rejecting the writ application on the ground that the disputes relate to breach of contract and the Writ Court cannot pass any order for payment of the amount due to any party. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not directly concerned with the said payments which were to be made and it was for the BISCOMAUN or the Managing Director of the BISCOMAUN to take action in this regard. It is further submitted that the period for which payment was to be made is admittedly of the year 1988 whereas the present complaint petition has been filed on 17.04.2007 and as such is barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.