P S DAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court.This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 5.10.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 1431 of 2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur by which he ordered that framing of the charge in the case will be kept in abeyance till money is deposited in favour of the complainant -opposite party No.

(2.) BY this order the learned Judicial Magistrate has further directed that all the accused persons shall have to remain present in the Court notwithstanding the fact that they have been allowed to be represented under Section 205 of the Code. The petitioners have contended that earlier also they had come before this Court for quashing the order of the order of cognizance taken against them on 1.9.2000 vide Cr. Misc. No. 5685 of 2001. They had filed a petition for their representation in the aforesaid case under the provisions of Section 205 of the Code, (being Cr. Misc. No. 3887 of 2001). Both the aforesaid applications were taken up together and heard and disposed of by Hon ble Mr. Justice P.K. Deb by which this Court allowed the Chairman V.D.Sarin and P.S.Das Gupta (petitioner No. 1) to be allowed to be represented under Section 205 of the Code, while a similar prayer made by petitioner No. 2, N.D. Arnbasta, was refused. The concluding portion of the said order ran as follows : "But it is hoped that the petitioners shall maintain their dignity to get rid of such sort of cases by mutualisation of the matter with opposite party."

(3.) THE petitioners have contended that M/s I.D.P.L. is a Government of India undertaking but in the complaint petition it has not been impleaded as party. The Chairman V.D. Sarin was not even in the employment of the Company in the year 1995. He joined the Company in October, 1997. Petitioner P.S. Das Gupta was also not in the employment of the Company on the alleged date of occurrence as he joined it in March, 1997. It has been further contended that no transaction was made in the personal names of these three accused persons rather it was the Company to which the advance of Rs. 2,00.000/ - was paid. Even now the Company (I.D.P.L) does not deny it. The petitioners are only the employees of the Company and it can not be said that they got any advantage out of this advance of Rs, 2,00,000/ -. Three witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant has spoken about the transaction of the business with the Company and not with the present petitioners. From the order passed by this Court it would not appear that the petitioner were directed to pay the amount. M/s I.D.P.L. is a sick industry and the matter is pending in B.I.F.R. and no civil suit could have been launched against it. Shri V.K. Sarin had already retired on 1.10.2002. The Impugned order is not based on any law and is wholly illegal. On these grounds amongst others it has been contended that the impugned order be quashed and in the meantime further proceeding be stayed.