ATREYEE TALAPATRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. No one appears on be/half of the petitioner.

(2.) Allegation against the petitioner is that goods for Rs 54,650/- was supplied to the petitioner's firm on assurance to make the payment within seven days but she did not make the payment even after selling and misappropriating the amount.

(3.) The revision application has been filed directly to this Court without approaching Sessions Judge on the factual ground as well as legal point. On the factual ground, it is said that Opposite Party No. 2 was not entitled for money, rather the principal company was entitled for the same but this much of the defence cannot be entertained at the stage of cognizance or issuing of process. On the legal point, it is said that civil liability is only made out, if the allegation of misappropriation is connected with the facts of the case raised in defence by the petitioner that Opposite Party No. 2 was not entitled for price of goods supplied to the petitioner then mala fide intention comes in picture needs decision which only is possible after production of evidence by the parties. Thus, I find no infirmity in passing the order by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 633(c) of 2005 in taking cognizance in the case and issuing process against the petitioner.