Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 980 (ORI)

Ashok Wasudeo Patwardhan v. State of Orissa

2017-09-04

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Tapas Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned counsel for the State. 2. In this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Ashok Wasudeo Patwardhan has challenged the impugned order dated 14.10.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.174 of 1997 in framing charge under sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case arises out of Khallikote P.S. Case No.62 of 1997. 3. It appears that the first information report was lodged by one Gagan Chandra Patnaik before the officer in charge of Khallikote police station on 11.07.1997 alleging therein against M/s. Pal Refinery (1) Ltd. and its Board of Directors for misappropriation of his dealer’s deposit amount to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and dissolution of the firm without refunding the deposit amount with mala fide intention to grab huge amount and converting the establishment fund into their personal fund by fraud. 4. After registration of the case, the Inspector of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, Cuttack investigated the matter and found prima facie case not only against the petitioner but also against one J.B. Krishnamurthy for commission of offence under sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, submitted first charge sheet dated 26.03.2003 keeping the investigation upon. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging order of framing charge contended that the deposits from the informant was accepted by the co-accused J.B. Krishnamurthy who was the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Pal Refinery (1) India Ltd. and at that point of time, the petitioner was nowhere in the picture and subsequently when J.B. Krishnamurthy submitted his resignation for his involvement in some fraud cases, the petitioner took over the charge and he was a mere employee of the company and he assured the informant to pay back the deposit money which could not be done. He further submitted that since the petitioner has not cheated the informant in any manner and there is absence of any common intention with the co-accused J.B. Krishnamurthy, the order of framing charge against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. He further submitted that since the petitioner has not cheated the informant in any manner and there is absence of any common intention with the co-accused J.B. Krishnamurthy, the order of framing charge against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order of framing charge, placed the first information report as well as charge sheet and submitted that the F.I.R. clearly mentioned that M/s. Pal Refinery (1) Ltd. was incorporated by J.B. Krishnamurthy, Gopal Neelakantha, the petitioner and four others on 30.09.1991 under the certificate of incorporation no. 01-13269 of 1991-92 issued by the Registrar of Company, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and therefore, the contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a mere employee of M/s. Pal Refinery (1) Ltd. cannot be accepted. He further contended that the informant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the company for dealership and he was appointed as a dealer and as per instruction, he completed LPG godown and submitted completion report as per requirement but thereafter, when he approached the authority for grant of LPG stock, by that time after resignation of the co-accused J.B. Krishnamurthy, the petitioner had taken over the charge and the petitioner went on deceiving the informant by giving false assurance of paying the interest money of Rs.40,000/- within ten days which was not done and then the company changed its name as C.M. Power and gas Pvt. Ltd. and the company made no correspondence with the petitioner either regarding the dealership of LPG in favour of the petitioner or refunding of the security deposit of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that not only the informant but also others who had made similar deposits have been cheated and therefore, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner. 7. Law is well settled that at the time of framing of charge under section 240 of Cr.P.C. in a warrant case, the Magistrate is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion whether the materials produced are sufficient for convicting the accused or not. The Court is to see whether a prima facie case is made out and it would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of considering whether the accused would be able to establish his defence, if any. The Court is to see whether a prima facie case is made out and it would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of considering whether the accused would be able to establish his defence, if any. Where even the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused and the Court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. Of course, the Court should not proceed mechanically in framing the charge just because an accusation was made by the prosecution against the accused concerned but it has look into the materials brought on record to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and that it is competent to try such offence and punish the accused adequately. The probative value of the materials is not to be gone into at the time of framing of the charge; though for conviction, the Court has to look into such probative value and come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. The law does not permit a ‘mini trial’ at that stage. 8. In view of the aforesaid settled principle of law and after going through the F.I.R., the materials collected during course of investigation and the charge sheet submitted by the Inspector of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, I find that prima facie ingredients of the offence charged are made out against the petitioner and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMC application being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. The order of interim stay of further proceeding granted as per order dated 11.11.2004 stands vacated. Since the case is of the year 1997, the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote shall make every endeavour to expedite the trial. 10. Let a copy of the order be immediately communicated to the learned Trial Court to do the needful.