BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 13-1-2003 in C.P. Case No. 325/02 pased by Shri J.P. N. Pandey, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the case of the revisionist complainant under Section 203, Cr.P.C. finding that there was no prima facie case against the accused person.

(2.) The question mainly to be answered in this revision is whether an accused can set up his defence and produce some documents during inquiry by the Magistrate in proof that the case of the complainant was false and can such a document be considered by the Magistrate along with other documents produced by the complainant and whether on the basis of such a document produced by the accused, can the Magistrate say that the complainant suppressed some matters ?

(3.) The aforesaid question arises out of the short facts of the case that Suresh Kumar Tekriwal was one of the partners of firms namely Akchhay Steels, M/s. Vishwanath Transport, M/s. Chandra Transport Agency, M/s. Ambika Steels, M/s. Abhikhesh Steels, M/s. Anjani Steels. As per partnership agreement, bank account was opened in the Vijaya Bank for the firms Akchhay Steels and it was a condition that the account shall be operated under the joint signature of both the parties but with the collusion of other accused persons, Suresh Kumar Tekriwal has withdrawn Rs. 17,20,789/- from the period 3-8-1999 to 28- 2-2000 by 48 cheques. In this way, all the accused persons have misappropriated the amount by committing loss to the complainant. During continuation of partnership of M/s. Akchhay Steels and M/s. Vishwanath Transport a dispute arose between the parties and that was referred to the sole arbitrator Sri B.N. Prasad, who has passed an award on 20-11-2000. Subsequently, Execution Case No. 5/01 was filed for execution of the said arbitration award in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Bokaro, which ended in compromise on 1-4-2002. During the course of arbitration proceeding, business of the firm was continuing and income from that business was not included in the claims before arbitration. Suresh Kumar Tekriwal was in office of the firms and he was dealing with all the transactions in violation of partnership agreeemnt and during pendency of the arbitration proceeding, He received total amount of Rs. 15 crores, 261 lakhs from different firms and that amount was not distributed amongst the partners. Similarly, he further received Rs. 20 crores 57 lakhs from different firms and that amount was also not distributed amongst the partners for which legal notice was served to the accused persons and he replied it by denial of all facts. Hence, this complaint.