RAVI UPPAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners of both the Cr. Misc. Petitions have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the judgment dated 26.02.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. -II, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 40 of 2001 arising out of common order dated 24.08.2000 passed by Shri A.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in C.P. Case No. 617 of 2000.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short was that the complainant O.P. No. 2 Amitabh Kumar Srivastava in his complaint case No. 617 of 2000 presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against the petitioners of both the Cr. Misc. Petitions alleged that he was working as Commercial Manager in Balaji Coke Industries (Pvt.) Limited of Pachgarhi, Katras, Dhanbad engaged in trading of Hard Coke business. The complainant's company used to supply Hard Coke from Porbandar, Gujarat to Hindustan Zinc Limited, Rajasthan and for transportation of Hard Coke, his company needed heavy duty trucks. It was narrated in the complaint petition that the petitioner Akash Passey (Cr.M.P. No. 365/03) had approached the complainant's company at Dhanbad with the offer that he was the manufacturer of trucks and trailers and persuaded the complainant for physical trial of the trucks at Porbandar, Gujarat. Pursuant to such proposal his company transported hard coke by truck No. HR -38C/0073 on 01.06.99, 05.06.1999 and on 17.06.1999 which carried 38 metric tones of hard coke per trip/per truck in presence of the petitioners. It was alleged in the complaint that his company then purchased two Volvo Trucks with Traillers financed by M/s Sri International Finance Limited. Cost of two vehicles aforesaid was Rs. 53,64,376/ - for which the complainant's company made down payment to the extent of Rs. 7,86,368/ - as the margin money. One transporter M/s Shri Jagdamba Road Carriers (Pvt.) Limited was arranged by the petitioners and an agreement was executed in the complainant's company office at Katrasgarh. The trucks with trailers were supplied to the complainant's company but it was detected from the owner book and sales certificate that the carrying capacity of each of the trucks was only about 21/22 metric tones and not 38 metric tones and in that manner the petitioners cheated and played fraud with the complainant -O.P. No. 2 though it was stated that each of the vehicles sold to them would carry 38 metric tones of goods. The money of the complainant's company was blocked and trucks with trailers were returned to the petitioner through the financier with the request to refund the margin money and also to reimburse loss incurred to them but of no avail. Hence the complaint case.

(3.) THE State was represented through the A.P.P.