KOCHUKUNJU DANIEL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent State. On 22.2.2012, no one had appeared on behalf of private respondent No. 2 Jaydeo Panja, in spite of repeated calls and as such, the case was fixed for today. Today, learned counsel for private respondent appears and submits that he has no instructions in the matter.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the F.I.R. and the further proceedings in connection with Dhanbad Sadar P.S. Case no. 492 of 2000 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It may be stated that a Complaint Case No. 902 of 2000 was filed by the private respondent No. 2 against the petitioners in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, who in turn, by order dated 24.8.2000 had forwarded the same for institution of police case, on the basis of which, Dhanbad Sadar P.S. Case no. 492 of 2000 was instituted and investigation was taken up.

(3.) From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that there were business terms between the complainant private respondent No. 2 and the petitioners, as the complainant is a wholesale dealer of medicines and the petitioners are the Officials of M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. who were supplying medicines of their company to the complainant. It is alleged that medicines worth Rs. 3,62,231.13/- were supplied by the petitioners to private respondent and the entire price of the consignment, which included the Sales Tax payable thereon under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, was paid to the accused persons, but the statutory Form IX-C was not delivered to the purchasing dealer i.e., the complainant, evidencing the factum of payment of Sales Tax, so as to enable the purchasing dealer to claim exemption before the Sales Tax Authorities. It is alleged that the accused persons had been withholding the said statutory Form IX-C and it was not given to the complainant even after repeated requests, due to which, the complainant was made to suffer wrongful loss, as he was made liable for payment of Sales Tax again for the same transaction, in spite of the fact that the tax had already been paid by him.