State of Punjab vs Lachhman Dass and Others

G.S. Chahal, J.—This criminal revision has been filed by the PUNSUP with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 30 8-1989 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha vide which the respondents herein were discharged.

The prosecution was launched against the respondent as well as other persons, on the allegations that all those persons, bad entered into an agreement in the year 1984-85, with the Manager, of PUNSUP. Under that agreement, they were entrusted with large quantity of paddy. The accused persons were to deliver the resultant rice after shelling at the rate, of 67% yield The accused had, however, supplied rice deficient to the extent of 385-05-076 quintal. When a notice was served upon them, to make up the deficiency, they made a payment of Rs. 55,000/- and after adjusting this amount, they had still committed criminal misappropriation to the extent of Rs. 2,76. 172-87 paise.

The accused are made liable for their status as partners of the firm. The learned Magistrate had found that as per partnership deed dated 23-8-1984, which was the deed at the time of catering into the agreement with the PUNSUP, only Sudesh Goyal, Krishna Mittal, Ashok Kumar and, Sham Sunder of Hindu Undivided Family were partners of M/s Mittal Rice Mills, Nabha. The other accused-persons, who are respondents in the present petition, were found to be not partners and as such, they were discharged. The State wants to make the present respondent also liable on the basis that they had not given a notice of their retirement from the partnership. I am, however, of the view that if any of the respondents had failed to give notice of his retirement from the partnership-firm, he may be liable under civil law to make good the loss to any person dealing with the partnership-firm, treating them to be partners. So far as criminal liability is concerned, the respondents wore not partners of the firm on the relevant date when the agreement was entered into and as such, they were neither entrusted with the paddy, nor were they liable to return any rice nor were they guilty of having committed criminal breach of trust The learned Magistrate had correctly appreciated the evidence for recording the order of discharged. Mo interference by this Court is called, for. The Criminal revision, is hereby dismissed.