VIJAY KEDIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 1.3.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. C -1357/2006 whereby and whereunder he dismissed complaint petition under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) PETITIONER (complainant) has stated that he is owner of two Firms, namely, Ajay Aloid and Alcoid Company and Johnson and Johnson Rang Rasayan Udyog. He further alleged that both aforesaid firms are running in separate building inside the Budhia Compound. Ranchi. Complainant further stated that he took loan of Rs. 10 lacs from U.Co. Bank for running business of Ajay Aloid and Alcoid Company. He further stated that he could not pay back the loan amount, therefore, Bank approached Debt Recovery Tribunal for realization of loan. It is further stated that Debt Recovery Tribunal decided the matter in favour of Bank and directed that Bank can recover its money by selling property and goods of Ajay Aloid and Alcoid Company. It is then alleged that in the garb of aforesaid order of Debt Recovery Tribunal, accused persons dishonestly removed property of the Firm Johnson and Johnson and sold them to Arun Kumar Budhia and Sanjay Kumar Budhia on thrown -away price and, thereby, put huge loss to the petitioner.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of taking cognizance it is not open for the Magistrate to go beyond the materials produced by the complainant for concluding that no case is made out against accused person. In the instant case, Court has considered some materials which could not be taken into account. It is submitted that learned Court below took into consideration mandate of Reserve Bank of India regarding non permissibility of running two industrial unit in same campus. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained in this revision.