M K AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Miscellaneous Cases and the revision were heard analogous and by this common judgment, all the aforesaid three cases are being disposed of.

(2.) By the aforesaid two Miscellaneous Cases the order of Cognizance dated 26th September, 1998 passed by Sri V.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Patna in complaint case No. 865 (C) of 1998 and the proceedings consequent thereof have been sought to be quashed. In the revision, as referred to above, order dated 24th March, 1999 passed by the same Magistrate, rejecting the prayer of revisionist (accused), namely, M.K. Agarwal and V.K. Mandekar for their permanent representation throughout the trial of the aforesaid complaint case, has been challenged.

(3.) So far the two Miscellaneous Cases are concerned, they have been filed by M.K. Agarwal and V.K. Mandekar who are officers of M/s. Gati Cargo Management Services, a registered company handling the transport of goods. Misc. Case (Cr. Misc. No. 27305/98) has been filed by Nimagodde, the manufacturer of raw materials to be used in pharmaceutical products. The opposite party in the aforesaid three Misc. Cases and the revision is the State of Bihar and A.K. Ghosh, Branch Manager of M/s. Aglowmed Ltd. Company, a manufacturer of Medicine. The aforesaid company (M/s. Aglowmed Ltd.) had admittedly entered into an agreement with the company engaged in manufacture of raw materials whose Managing Director Sri N. Prasad was made an accused in the complaint case, referred to above for supply of raw materials on the basis of letter of credit. In consequence of the above agreement, the accused company despatched raw materials to the complainant company to be delivered at its Branch Office at Ankaleshwar in the district of Bharuch (State of Gujarat) through M/s. Gati Cargo Management Services. The consignment reached its destination on 11th May, 1998. An officer of the complainant company approached the transport company for delivery of the consignment, firstly, on 12th May, 1998 and on each and every date, thereafter, but the delivery was refused. Then on 16th May, 1998 a written request was made to the Transport Company and then the Transport Company and its Officers who were accused before the trial Court stated that they had received a communication dated 15th May, 1998 not to deliver the goods. Thereafter the complainantTs company exchanged various communications with the supplier company and did not receive satisfactory explanation for nondelivery of the consignment. So it was alleged that since the prices of raw materials had increased, the supplier company developed greed and Consequently the complainant company had to purchase raw material at higher price and was put to loss.