ADITYA SHANKARAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner has been apprehending his arrest in Parsudih P. S. Case No. 85 of 2007 registered under Sections 406/420/467/ 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the -petitioner, who was working as a salesman in a firm known as Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. though has been alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,19,652 by not depositing the same to the firm but the entire allegation is false and falsity of the allegation would be evident from the fact that the period of defalcation is said to be from February, 2006 to April, 2007 whereas petitioner was appointed in the month of May, 2006 and not only that in the complaint petition, the petitioner has been alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,19,652 but in course of investigation, the petitioner has been alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,57,739 and as such the complainant has not been coming up with the definite case and moreover, name of the purchaser has not been disclosed from whom the petitioner is alleged to have received the money but did not deposit in the account and the actual fact is that the complainant being the Deputy Manager himself misappropriated the amount and put the blame upon the petitioner and others.