RAJ KUMAR CHADDHA SON OF LATE SANT RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND; RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY SON OF LATE LALIT MOHAN PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners, who along with another have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 355 of 2003, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 9.7.2004 passed therein by Sri Ram Chandra Sahni, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 406 and 120B I.P.C. and has issued summons for their appearance.

(2.) One Rajesh Kumar Pandey, the complainant, impleaded herein as Opp. Party No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint on 22.5.2003 inter alia alleging criminal breach of trust against the petitioners in relation to payment of cane price for the sugarcanes said to have been supplied by him to M/s H.M.P. Sugars Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Factory") of which the petitioners are high officials during the period 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 crushing seasons. The complainant claims himself to be a practicing lawyer in the district court. He also claims to have undertaken cane farming as another source of his livelihood and provides financial stability to his family. It is alleged that the complainant had cordial relationship with petitioner No. 1 since the past eight years. It is also alleged that since the arrangement in the Sugar Mills regarding payment of cane price had been very unsatisfactory since past few years, the complainant had decided not to supply his sugarcanes to the Sugar Mill. However, petitioner No. 1 on gathering information regarding the non-supply along with Cane Manager came to the residence of the complainant on 5.12.1999 at around 5.00 P.M. and requested him to supply his sugarcanes to the Sugar Mill with the assurance that the cane price would be cleared within 15 days of the supply. Assured thereby, the complainant started supply of his sugarcanes to the Sugar Mill during the crushing season 1999-2000 but the petitioners did not make any payment which was up to the tune of Rs. 1,05,489/- and again on their assurance he supplied sugarcanes during the crushing season 2000-2001 and the total amount of Rs. 23,542/- for the same had not yet been paid by the petitioners. It is also alleged that notwithstanding repeated requests for clearing the dues, the petitioners always gave assurance and eventually on 20.5.2003 when the complainant requested petitioner No. 1, at his residence in the presence of other accused, all of them got angry with the complainant and petitioner No. 1 refused to make the payments. The apprehension in the mind of the complainant is that the petitioners have conjointly conspired to grab the amount of Rs. 1,29,031/- being the amount of cane price.

(3.) The matter now rests settled by two decisions of this Court, namely, Suman Prasad Srivastava @ Suman Prasad v. State of Bihar,2001 3 PLJR(SC) 807 and order dated 2.3.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44208 of 2007 B.K. Sureka v. State of Bihar. In the case of Suman Prasad Srivastava (Supra), a similar situation had arisen where the cane grower had not received payment from the Sugar Mill. It was held that the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is a self-contained Act and it has got all the provisions of settling all the disputes between the supplier of sugarcane and sugar factory and also regarding violation of any provisions by either of the parties for the purpose of penalty being imposed for the criminal prosecution.