Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 406 (PAT)

M. A. Ubaid v. State of Bihar

1994-12-14

P.K.DEB

body1994
Order 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 11.8.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the cognizance for an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner alongwith some other employees of the Central Coalfields Ltd. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he being the Chairman cum Managing Director of C.C.L. has no direct link with the allegation brought by the complainant/opposite party no. 2 in his complaint petition in Complaint Case No. 255 of 1993. 3. The brief fact as revealed from the complaint petition is that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 being proprietor of M/s N.K. Singh had filed a tender for the purchase of Motor under Tender No. MSTC/ERO/CCL/91-92/T-4 and the tender on 16.3.1992 was opened at Calcutta. The complainant's tender was accepted for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,01,905/- and the said amount was deposited to the Central Coalfields Ltd. by two Pay Orders dated 22.8.1992 of the two Banks through Bank of India and through New Bank of India, Ranchi respectively. The complainant took delivery of 12 motors on 16.10.1992 but to his utter surprise he could find that the Copper wire and other materials inside the 6 motors out of 12 motors were totally missing. The complainant then wrote letter but the accused persons deliberately kept mum and had not supplied the missing materials of 6 motors, although full payment had already been taken. In the complaint petition, the petitioner was impleaded as accused no. 2. After taking preliminary statement of the complainant, cognizance was taken and processes were issued and against that order this quashing petition has been filed. 4. Mr. M.M. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made three fold submissions in this case; (i) that the criminal proceeding is not maintainable as the fact revealed only a civil liability; (ii) that the petitioner being a Central Government employee, he should not be prosecuted without prior compliance of section 197 of the Cr. P. C. and (iii) third point raised is that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner of his involvement with the crime, as such no criminal proceeding is maintainable against him. 5. Mr. M.P. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has reverted the submissions of Mr. P. C. and (iii) third point raised is that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner of his involvement with the crime, as such no criminal proceeding is maintainable against him. 5. Mr. M.P. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has reverted the submissions of Mr. M.M. Banerjee on materials on record and supported the impugned order. 6. On the first point, I do not find much force as there can be a criminal liability also when it could be found that even after taking full payment, delivery was not made in proper form and when the point was raised the accused persons kept mum. Whether cheating is attracted or not as contemplated under section 420 of the I.P.C. can only be thrashed out when all facts are brought on record at the time of charges. On the second point also there is no much force as the prior sanction in my view, is necessary under section 197 of the Cr. P.C. when the petitioner at the relevant time of the alleged commission of offence was employed in connection with affairs of the Company or Corporation. C.C.L. is an undertaking of the Union of India. On the third point, there is force. Except an omnibus allegation, there is nothing particularly against the accused petitioner of his involvement with this alleged crime. The petitioner being the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of C.C.L. might have liability of non-fulfilment of any contract in its proper form and for that his liability cannot be ignored, but as regards criminal liability, there must be some direct accusation regarding his involvement with the alleged crime. The complaint petition is totally silent on this point, hence I find force in the third point. 7. Cognizance taken by the impugned order in Complaint Case No. 255 of 1993 on 11.8.1994 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi against the petitioner is hereby held to be bad in the eye of law and hence the impugned order is quashed only so far the petitioner is concerned.