AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, J.—Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that earlier the lawyer of the opposite party was Mr. Banerjee and he has got no instruction but argued the appeal.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court committed an error of law in coming to a finding that the accused-respondent, who was working as an Administrative Officer in the Company of complainant, has given all the files to the concerned lawyer. Since, two files were still missing admittedly as per the evidence of P.W.4 and as such the accused-respondent was responsible for keeping the tiles with him, causing loss to the Company and as such he has committed an offence.
After, hearing both the parties, I find that the complainant-accused filed a complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, stating therein that the complainant/appellant, Shyam Sundar Narena is an employee of Bihar Air Products Ltd. and was posted as Assistant Office Master. He has alleged that the accused-respondent, Ashok Kumar Chaudhary was posted as an Administrative Officer of the Company and during the period of his employment he was In-charge of the office files. It is alleged that the accused-respondent submitted his resignation on 31.5.91 to the Managing Director of the Company and his resignation was accepted with effect from 1.6.1991 and he was asked to hand over all the files to the complainant-appellant. It is further alleged that the complainant-appellant by his letter No. 341 dated 26.12.1991 requesting the accused-respondent to hand over the following files:
(i) Case file of M/s. Sach Deva Agency,
(ii) Case file of National Insuiance Company Ltd.
(iii) Case file of A.K. Tiwaiy,
(iv) Case file of Sri R.P. Verma.,
(v) Case file of Amonia Plant of Sindri Unit.
He has also stated that all those files taken out from the custody by the accused-respondent, Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and he has signed the gate slip while leaving office with the files those are my files and it was alleged by keeping those files the accused-respondent is helping other persons, who are inimical to the Company and as such the complaint for taking cognizance against the accused-respondent u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance was taken against die accused-respondent and thereafter, summons were issued and after appearance of the accused-respondent the trial was conducted by the Addition! 1 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella; who after trial and hearing both the parties, found no case u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and acquitted the accused-respondent.
In course of trial the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses. P.W.I, is Achaibat Nath Pandey, P.W.2 is Kameshwar Singh, P.W.3 is Dinesh Kumar Singh and P.W.4 is Shyam Sundar Narera.
P.W. 1, Achaibat Nath Pandey, who is an employee of the Company. He stated in Court that the office of the Company is gathered from all side and there is only one gate and whenever any employee conies out with material or file of the Company then he has signed slip in which time out and time in both are recorded. He further stated that he knows the accused-respondent, who was an employee in that Company and he used to go out of the Company with the file. He also submitted that he used to submit weekly report about the materials taken out and taken in.
P.W.2, Kameshwar Singh, he stated that on 11.4.90 the accused-respondent has taken out the file of Sachdeva Agency and he also signed the time out mentioned as 5-20 p.m. He also stated that the accused-respondent had taken out the file of National Insurance Company and signed the time out as 6.45. Both the slips were marked as Ext.- 1 and 1/A. He has also stated that one gate pass, which is marked as Ext. A.
P.W.3, Dinesh Kumar Singh, he has also proved 3 slips, which were marked as Ext. 1/b, 1/c and 1/d. As per Ext. 1/b file of R.P. Verma which was taken out from the Company by accused-respondent
P.W.4, Shyam Sundar Narera. who was Assistant Officer Master in the Company. He has stated that the accused-responded was an employee in the Bihar Air Products and he has remained In charge and his resignation was accepted and after Iris resignation a letter was issued to him for handing back the fill is of the aforesaid Company.
In his cross-examination, he also admitted that a Money Suit was filed by the Company and the same was referred to the Arbitrator and the accused-respondent had taken out the file to the Advocate for filing the same. He also stated, in his cross-examination, that before accepting the resignation of an employee clearance certificate is required, but no clearance certificate was obtained in case of the accused-respondent before his resignation was accepted. He admitted that the accused-respondent used to take out the file and entrust the same to the Company''s lawyer for filing cases. He also admitted that the accused-respondent used to submit progress report of the cases to the Zonal Manager. The learned trial court after considering all the evidences and the documents found that as per the evidence of P.W.4 all the files taken out were handed over to the Lawyer''s of the Company for filing the case on behalf of the Company. The Court also found that Ext. E, which shows that the accused-respondent has submitted a report about the file and cases to the General Manager, but the General Manager, was not examined by the prosecution. The letter which is Ext. E shows that a report was submitted by the accused-respondent with regard to file of Sachdev Agency and National Insurance Company Ltd. and all other files. This report was submitted by the accused-respondent to the General Manager on 25.9.91.
Thus, the court came to a finding that Ext. E shows that all the files are in the custody of the lawyer of the Company until and unless either the General Manager himself should have cone to depose that the files taken away were subsequently used by the accused respondent from the custody of the lawyer Lawyer should have been examined to say that the files which were given to them on behalf of the Company were subsequently taken back by the accused-respondent and he has misused them.
In that view of the matter, after considering all the documents and evidences on record, the court found that no case u/s 406 I.P.C. is made out. After considering all the evidences, I also find that there is no other argument or possibility, since there is no direct allegation against the accused that he has taken back the files from the lawyers of the Company or that he has used any of the company''s files for his personal gain or for the gain of any of the company which are inimical to the complainant''s company.
Hence, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.