SARDAR SINGH Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IF a partner of a firm receives money on behalf of the firm and does not deposit the same with the firm. Can he be charged for the commission of the offence of Criminal mis -appropriation is the question arising for consideration in this case ?

(2.) THE basic facts are that the respondent -complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner -accused seeking his trial for commission of the offences under Section 420, 193 and 403 R.P.C., on the allegations that complainant and accused are partners of a firm engaged in the business of fabrication. The parties who are brothers and with their deceased father constituted the partnership by virtue of a partnership deed executed and registered on 24 -03 -1984. In 1991 disputes arose between the parties and for resolving disputes an arbitrator has been appointed who is yet to pass the award. For the assessment years 1987 -88, 1988 -89, 1989 -90 the assessing authority under J&K General Sales Tax Act, passed assessment orders dated 4 -10 -1991, 13 -03 -1993 and 29 -10 -19993, fixing the tax liability of the firm at Rs. 4,04,100/ - which amount was deposited by the firm and then three appeals were filed by the accused on behalf of the firm before Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax, who by his order dated 27.06.1999, set aside the assessment orders and remitted the case back to Assessing Authority for fresh assessment. Assessing authority re -assessed the tax liability of the firm and allowed a refund of Rs. 3,82,779/ -. The accused/petitioner partner received the amount of refund on 19.03.1998 but he did not deposit the same in the firm's account, hence the other partner the respondent -complainant filed the criminal complaint.

(3.) THE complainant aggrieved by the said order went in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his Order dated 7 -09 -2000 set aside the order of the trial court being of the view that offence of criminal breach of trust was prima facie made out against the accused Sardar Singh, the other partner of the firm. The accused Sardar Singh has, therefore, challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in this Criminal revision.