BALBINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.1.2003 passed by Sri P.M. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, in Complaint Case No. 2189C of 2001 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 406 I.PC. against them.

(2.) THE prosecution case is based on the complaint petition filed by one Girdhari Lai who stated that he was the Branch Manager of the Bettiah Branch of M/s East India Transport Agency (hereinafter referred to as "the transport agency") and due to the frequent business transactions, a feeling of trust and security had developed in the mind of the complainant so far as the opposite party were concerned. It is said that O.P. No. 3 in order to avoid the rigors of Income Tax and Sales Tax carried out several business in different names from various premises and utilized the services of the transport agency for the transportation of his goods. It is further said that the said O.P. No. 3, as per the prevailing practice, on many occasions took delivery of his goods from the transport agency through his trustworthy agents Ashok Kumar and Om Prakash by merely informing over telephone or by chit or by merely stating the consignment number without paying the sum due thereon on the assurance that the payment would be made later. It has been alleged that O.R No.

(3.) THE complainant impleaded as opposite party no. 2 herein has appeared and filed a counter affidavit to contest this application. It has been submitted that the transport agency had never given any letter which purportedly has been annexed as Annexure -3 and that the same was a fabricated document manufactured by the accused persons to bring an end to. the litigation against them. It has further been submitted that the total consignment had been taken delivery of by the men of the petitioner Balbinder Singh and no consignments whatsoever was left with the transport agency to be delivered. The receipts showing one Om Prakash to have taken delivery of consignments have been annexed as Annexure - 'A ' series. It has also been submitted that the Chennai Office of the transport agency had requested information from its Muzaffarpur Office regarding delivery of the consignments in question and the Muzaffarpur Officer in reply thereto had informed that all the consignments had been lifted by the party. The copies of the said letters have been annexed as Annexure - 'B ' series. Finally, it was submitted that in order to grab a huge amount, i.e., about four lacs the petitioner herein had manufactured Annexure - '3 ' and other documents which have been filed as Annexures to the application.