Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3078 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2005-11-21

F.C.BANSAL

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. Roongta Hospital, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur is run by M/s R.M.C. Med. Ltd., which is a registered company under the Companies Act. The said Company lodged a criminal complaint through its Director Dr. Narendra Kumar Roongta against his real brother and one of the Directors of the company Shri Suresh Kumar Roongta in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur alleging therein that accused Suresh Kumar Roongta was authorised to maintain the accounts of the hospital and run the medical shop of the hospital. He cheated the company and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 5,09,946/- by forging the receipts (debit notes) showing payment to some of the creditors of the company, refund of balance amount deposited by the Indoor patient and the payment in the party account and making false entries in the account books of the company and thereby he committed offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 418 and 420 IPC. The said complaint was forwarded to Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.RC. and on receiving the same, the SHO, RS. Malviya Nagar registered the case and investigation commenced. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that the present criminal complaint is an out come of inter se ownership dispute of Roongta Hospital between the two brothers. It is in the said backdrop the present criminal complaint has been lodged by Dr. Narendra Roongta with an ulterior motive, in order to harass and humiliate the petitioner. The allegations levelled against the Accused - Petitioner are far from truth. The Accused - Petitioner has committed no criminal breach of trust or cheating. No case under Section 409 IPC is made out against the Accused - Petitioner as there was no entrustment of property or any dominion over it. At the most offence under Section 403 IPC is made out which is bailable. It has also contended that the petitioner is not a Government servant and the company being principal is not the accused in this case and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty as Agent of the company. It is further contended that allegations levelled in the complaint relate to preparing some false cash vouchers which were prepared by the Cashier/Accountant of Roongta Hospital. It is further contended that allegations levelled in the complaint relate to preparing some false cash vouchers which were prepared by the Cashier/Accountant of Roongta Hospital. Entire alleged payment on the basis of cash voucher was made by the Cashier/Accountant but neither Cashier Beena Sharma nor Accountant Manish Mittal has been arrayed as an accused in the present case. False entries in the account books, if any, were made by the Cashier/Accountant. Ledger book and cash book which are in the possession of the company have not been produced before the Court for perusal. It is also submitted that in the Board Meeting dated 5.7.2004 of the complainant-company, Dr. Roongta had stated that the Accused - Petitioner was doing his duty in a forthright manner with complete honesty to the satisfaction of everyone. Even before the Company Law Board, affidavit of Dr. Roongta and Manish Mittal, Accountant were filed in favour of the Accused - Petitioner. Therefore, the application of the Accused - Petitioner for anticipatory bail moved under Section 438 Cr.PC. be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. It is contended by them that account books are not in the possession of the company but these are in the possession of the Accused - Petitioner. It is further contended that all the debit notes bear the signature of the Accused - Petitioner. All the creditors to whom payment was shown to have been made, have denied the payment. The details of the outdoor patients and details of persons to whom payment is shown to have been made in party account, have not been given in the debit notes. Hence, the application be rejected. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties and have also gone through the case diary. 5. Admittedly, the Accused - Petitioner is one of the Directors of the complainant-company. It was nowhere mentioned in the complaint that the Accused - Petitioner was working as Cashier in the company. It was mentioned in the complaint that on perusal of the account books, it came to the notice of the company and misappropriated the money. This fact prima-facie proves that the account books are not in the possession of the Accused - Petitioner but these are in the custody of the company. It was mentioned in the complaint that on perusal of the account books, it came to the notice of the company and misappropriated the money. This fact prima-facie proves that the account books are not in the possession of the Accused - Petitioner but these are in the custody of the company. The Investigating Officer has not seized those ledger books and cash books to produce in the Court for perusal in which false entries are alleged to have been made by the Accused - Petitioner. The evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation does not prove prima-facie that the account books were being maintained by the Accused - Petitioner and he made the false entries on debit and credit side. The record pertaining to the amount deposited by the indoor patients has not been seized by the I.O. Accountant and Cashier of the company have not been arrayed as accused in the complaint. 6. In view of these facts and looking to the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow the application of the Accused - Petitioner moved under Section 438 Cr.RC. 7. Therefore, the SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigation Officer of Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur is directed that in the event of arrest of Accused - Petitioner Suresh Kumar Roongta S/o Late Shri Bal Chand Roongta in FIR No. 627/2005 of the aforesaid police station, he be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) with two sound sureties of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO on the following conditions : 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer, and 3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission the Court. Bail application allowed. *******