ROHINTON H PITHWALLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANTICIPATORY bail application filed by petitioners Rohinton H Pithwalla and Mahatab Pithawalla in connection with Complaint Case Being C/1 Case No. 1522 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur is moved by Sri Anil Kumar and opposed by Sri Shekhar Sinha learned Additional P.P. and Sri Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the O.P. No.

(2.) IT is alleged that petitioner no. 1 being the Head of marketing of M/s. Hardrock Fabrication Private Limited (complainant company) made certain negotiation with M/s. Telcon Ltd for setting up a new plant of the complainant company at Kharagpur. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 2, who is the wife of petitioner no. 1. was employed in the company as Executive Finance Officer and she was receiving salary of Rs. 30,000/ - per month. It is stated that later on petitioner no. 1 wrote a letter to M/s Telcon Ltd and represented himself as the Director Marketing of complainant company and said that complainant company wants to establish a new unit , namely, M/s. Torro Processors India Pvt. Ltd. at Kharagpur and on that pretext seek support of Telcon to set up that unit. It is alleged that the petitioner no. 1, while he was in the service of complainant's company had illegally stolen drawing and design of complainant's company of cutting and processing for getting the job alloted in favour of M/s. Torro Processors India Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged that both petitioners had embezzled Rs. 23,000,00/ - of the complainant's company. Accordingly, the present case has been filed. 2 It is submitted by Sri Anil Kumar,learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that both the petitioners had left the job of the com plainant's company in the month of April, 2011.Thus, the question of stealing drawing and design of complainant's company for obtaining the job, in favour of M/s. Torro Processors India Pvt. Ltd., does not arise. He submits that the documents filed in the supplementary affidavit are forged and fabricated. It is submitted that in complaint petition, the complainant's company had stated that petitioner no. 2 is working in the company as Executive Finance Officer, but it filed a document in the supplementary counter affidavit to show that petitioner no. 2 was working in the company as Head of Finance, which is contradictory and against the case of complainant. It is further submitted that in fact petitioner no. 1 had received Rs. 6,30,000/ - vide cheque no. 136881, whereas petitioner no. 2 had received Rs. 4,42,000/ - vide cheque no. 136882, as bonus, thus the question of misappropriation of the said amount does not arise. So far the rest of the amount is concerned, it is submitted that petitioners never received those money and the money receipt annexed by the complainant company, in the counter affidavit are forged and fabricated. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Sri Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the claim of the petitioners that they have received money through cheuqe as bonus is incorrect and against the admitted documents. He submits that both the petitioners had filed Income Tax Return vide Annexure -J Series, in which they have not stated that they received any amount as bonus, which itself shows that no such bonus paid to them. He submits that in fact they misappropriated aforesaid amount. It is also submitted that Annexure - I Series shows that both petitioners received cash money as advance and in token of the said receipt, they put their signature on the column of receiver. It is also submitted that petitioner no. 2 was initially appointed as a Finance Executive but later on she was promoted to the post of Head of Finance and her salary enhanced from Rs. 30,000/ - per month to Rs. 50,000/ - per month. He brought to my notice Annexure -N, which is the Ledger account of petitioner no. 2, to show that her salary was enhanced from Rs. 30,000/ - to Rs. 50,000/ - per month. Learned counsel also brought to my notice Annexure -P , Authorities and Delegations Policy of the complainant's company, to show that petitioner no. 2 being Head of Finance can withdraw amount from the company towards the expenditure relating to business development of the company. Accordingly, it is submitted that both the petitioners misappropriated companies amount. Therefore they do not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Sri. Shekhar Sinha, learned Additional P.P. also opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

(3.) ,42,000/ - respectively as bonus from the complainant's company. But no rule and/ or letter produced before me to show that petitioners being officers of the company are entitled to get bonus. It further appears from Annexure -J Series that petitioners had not shown aforesaid amount in their Income Tax Return as Income. As noticed above, I find that petitioner no. 2 was later on promoted to the post of Head of Finance and being Head of Finance, she is entitled to withdraw advance money from the company for the purpose of expenditure of business development. Under the said circumstance, averments made at paragraph no. 21 of the anticipatory bail application does not inspire confidence.