Madan Lal vs The State of Punjab and others

S.D. Bajaj, J.—Respondent No. 3 through its Proprietor Respondent No. 2. placed an order for the purchase of cotton cloth valued at Rs. 41,350/- with Respondent No. 4 through Madan Lal Petitioner. The price of the goods was paid in full. Respondent No. 4 allegedly delivered the goods to the Transport Corporation of India (represented by Respondents 5 to 7) as carries on September 15, 1987, for onward transmission to Ludhiana. Respondent No. 2, who is sole proprietor of Respondent No. 3, was named as consignee of the goods in the goods receipt. The goods did not reach the destination. Repeated enquiries from the consigner, transporters and the Petitioner revealed that the goods have been his appropriated by them in collusion with each other

Respondent No. 2 Proprietor of the purchaser firm Respondent No. 3 filed a criminal complaint Annexure P-2 against the Petitioner, the vendor and the transporter under Sections 406, 407 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ludhiana, on December 23, 1987. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused named therein were ordered to be summoned by the learned trial court, vide its order dated January 4, 1988, to answer the charge u/s 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner alleges to have appeared before the learned trial court in response to its summonses on February 12, 1988.

Petitioner Madan Lal through whom order for the purchase of the goods, allegedly misappropriated, was placed by Respondent No. 4 has filed Crl. Miscellaneous No. 2197-M-1988 in this Court for quashing the complaint Annexure P-4 on the ground that the complaint does not disclose any case against him and that the dispute, if any, was triable by the Court at Muradabad (U.P.) and not Ludhiana and that the Petitioner has been added as co-accused in the complaint only to extract money from him.

I have heard learned D.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner and have carefully perused the record.

The opening words in para 2 of the complaint are that the complainant arrayed as Petitioner No. 2 before this Court had placed an order for the purchase of cotton cloth valued at Rs. 41,250/- with Respondent No. 4 Messrs Bombay Cloth House Muradabad through Madan Lal accused. Then again in the body of the complaint in same paragraph (2) aforesaid it is stated "the accused have misappropriated the goods in collusion with each other and have converted the same for their own use. This fact was openly declared by the partner of Bombay Cloth House, Madan Lal and the Branch Manager of Transport Co., at Ludhiana as well as Muradabad in presence of Sunder Lal son of Kul-want Rai, 309, Maya Nagar Ludhiana." Whether or not these inculcator accusations are correct shall be for the learned trial Court to decide on the basis of evidence produced before it. Suffice it to say that for the purposes of this petition for quashing of the complaint as also the summoning order, these allegations have per se to be accepted on their face value to see whether a prima facie case for the commission of the alleged offence u/s 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the Petitioner on their basis Satisfaction to this effect has already been recorded by the learned trial Court in its impugned order of 4-1-1988 and as such I see no ground to interfere on this score.

Again it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the deal was struck at Muradabad and, the property in goods purchased passed from Respondent No. 4 to Respondents 1 and 3 at Muradabad and as such, the criminal Court at Ludhiana has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint The argument again is wholly without merit. Vendor consigner in Respondent No. 4 delivered the goods to carrier represented by Respondents 5 to 7 for being delivered to the consignee purchaser Respondents 2 and 3 at Ludhiana. The goods dispatched are alleged to have been misappropriated by the accused in collusion with each other in the course of transit. As such the Criminal Court at the place of destination has also the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint regarding misappropriation of these goods,

No other point having been urged, criminal miscellaneous fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee assessed at Rs. 300/- only.