SRINIWAS AGRAWAL Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of Shri Gopal Mahto, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Gaya, in Complaint - Case No. 306 of 1983/ -/T.R. No. 2064 of 1984 dated 15.1.1983 by which cognizance was taken against the petitioners and ordered for issuance of summons against them. The learned Magistrate has not given what offence under what Sec. was found prima facie against the petitioners. The petitioners known as Jyoti Textiles, Bombay, are cloth merchants and commission agents. They had their regular business transactions with Ratanlal Agrawala at Gaya and one Mangilal Agrawala was agent on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners used to dispatch cloth to Ratanlal Agrawala on credit but after sometimes Ratanlal Agrawala failed to pay the dues and so the supply of cloth was also stopped. The cloth had been supplied through local branch of the Allahabad Bank and Hundis used to be received in the Bank on behalf of Jyoti Textiles, Bombay. The Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 2822.26 paise on 28.7.79 but later it was found that the price was increased by Rs. 1,000/ -. According to the complaint the price had been intentionally increased and so the excess money was cheated from the complainant by the petitioners causing wrongful gain to the petitioners in the garb of Hundis.

(2.) Mr. Bharuka, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they had regular business transactions. As the complainant fell in arrears of payment to the tune of more than Rs. 20,000/ - an agreement was entered into and arbitrators were appointed and as per award dated 14.3.83 the complainant was required to pay Rs. 23,923,44 paise to the petitioners but it did not. As per the award it was agreed that the complainant would go on paying the price of the cloth in future plus a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - to liquidate the arrears. Later the complainant changed his mind and filed the complaint case.

(3.) Mr. Bharuka further submitted that the whole thing took place in the course of regular business transaction. The award had been entered into as agreed to between the parties which is more in the nature of civil dispute and there is no criminal liability fastened to these transactions. As such the impugned order is bad in law.