FULEL SINGH Vs. SRILAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are being tried for an offence under Section 879 of the Penal Code in the Court of Shri Partha Sharthi, a Munsif-Magistrate at Ranchi. The petitioners prayed that they should be discharged. They also prayed for calling for a document and for examination of some persons as Court witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Munaif-Magistrate refused the prayers. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this application under Section 561A, of the Criminal P.C., and under Article 227 of the Constitution Of India of India. They pray that the entire proceeding before the Munsif-Magistrate be quashed, and further that the order passed by him on the 22nd November 1965, be set aside.

(2.) It is necessary to give some facts. It seems that there was a hire-purchase agreement under which the company of the petitioners, viz., Autolite Financiers (P) Ltd., agreed to finance the purchase of a motor truck by one Heeyalal Yadav for Rs. 15,000. A truck was accordingly purchased and its registration number was B.R.J. 1315. In the petition of complaint filed by Srilal Yadav on the ground that he has been looking after the truck, he has alleged that Heeyalal paid Rs. 4,000 for the truck in cash, and he agreed to pay Rs. 1,000 to Petitioner No. 1 (one of the directors of the Company) every month until the entire price was paid off. Heeyalal went on paying Rs. 1,000 per month to petitioner No. 1 until the month of December, 1968, when petitioner No. 2 wrote to him that he had not till then received even the first installment. The complainant made an enquiry from Heeyalal who told him that, although he had paid the installment, petitioner No. 1 had not granted him receipts. Consequently, money started being sent to petitioner No. 2 by Bank draft. In May, 1964, both the petitioners approached Heeyalal, and asked him to make up-to-date payments. Heeyalal said that he was perfectly willing to pay the amounts due from him provided receipt was granted to him for payments already made. The petitioners went away, saying that petitioner No. 2 would send the receipts from Delhi after consulting his books of account.

(3.) The story given in the petition of complaint further is that petitioner No. 1 and his men forcibly removed the truck from the road when the driver was taking tea in a shop at Booty on the 3rd June, 1964. On receipt of this news from the driver the complainant and Heeyalal went to the petitioner No. 1 in order to find out the reason for forcible seizure of the truck. Petitioner No. 1 told them that his instructions from petitioner No. 2 were not to release the truck until payment of the entire amount due from Heeyalal. The complainant and Heeyalal kept on telling petitioner No. 1 that they were always prepared to pay the entire amount due if up-to-date receipts for payments made were granted to them. On the 3rd October, 1964, the complainant went to petitioner No. 1 and again requested him to give back the truck. He offered to pay the actual dues even against kacha receipts; but petitioner No. 1 said that he was going to Delhi, and that, when he returned after a talk with petitioner No. 2, the complainant should see him on the 29th October, 1964. On the 29th October, the complainant as well as Heeyalal went to petitioner No. 1 and then learnt from him that he would not return the truck to them but would sell it to another person.