SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Pat) 1099

PATNA HIGH COURT
A.K.Sinha, J.
Narayan Chandra Mukherjee And Others
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4598 of 1999 ; 5118 of 1999 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 12, 2000

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Quashing-Cognizance taken u/ss 408, 418 and 120 B of IPC-Petitioners taking plea that no offence u/ss 408, 41 Band 120B, IPC made not against them and complaint case has been filed with malafide intention-Allegations amounting to violation of breach of contract-Complainant has got no locus standi to file complaint case-Held-A prima facie case is made out against the petitioners-Quashing refused. (Paras 12 to 15, 19 to 22)

       1991 Cr. LJ 1438,2000 Cr. LJ 174, 2000(1) East Cr. Cases 51, 1997 BCCR 292,1996(2) PLJR 370, AIR 1992 SC 604, 2000(1) PLJR 51, 1996 SCC (Cri) 160, 1995(2) East Cr. C 706 (SC), 2000(1) East Cr. C 58, 1998(2) PLJR 288, AIR 1974 SC 301, AIR 1979 SC 850, 1999(2) PLJR 913, 1998(3) PLJR 322, (1998)5 SCC 694, 1996 SCC (Cr.) 628, AIR 1992 SC 604-Referred.

       

Judgment

A.K.Sinha, J.

1. Both these applications were heard together as both the cases arise out of the common facts and common relief, inasmuch as, in both the cases, it has been prayed that the entire criminal proceedings including the order of cognizance taken in Complaint case No. 141/99 (T.R. No. 839/99) pending in the Court of Sri K.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, may be quashed.

2. In both the cases, the facts are almost similar. The petitioners case, in short, is that the complainant (opposite party No. 2) filed a complaint-petition in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, on 8.3.1999 against the petitioners which was transferred to the file of Sri K.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, under Sec. 192(2) Cr.P.C. for disposal and the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant as well as the statement of sole witnesses, namely, B.R. Chakraborty and took cognizance in the case under Secs. 408, 418 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and passed order for issuing summons against the accused-petitioners. Later on, warrant of arrest and processes under Sec. 82, Cr.P.C. were also issued. The brief facts, in the complaint-petition are that the complainant who was one of the Directors of M/s. Bihar Air Products Ltd. in short (B.A.P.L.) which is a company engaged in manufacturing and supplying industrial gases alleged that the petitioner Narayan Chandra Mukherjee was appointed as Company Secretary-cum-General Manager of the B.A.P.L. on 29.7.1979 and the terms and conditions of his appointment was that he will not divulge any trade or official secret of the company during the period of his service or he shall not receive any commission or gift of any kind from any person for rendering services during his employment. It is further alleged that Mr. Mukherjee had domain over the various secrets and confidential documents, trade secrets, equipment, plans and drawings of the company including the name of its customers, terms and conditions, principle policy, costing structures of various manufacturing/stores materials, other manufacturing and distribution costs and/or equipment in relation thereto and other confidential materials and/or information in the capacity of the General Manager and he entered into the conspiracy with the petitioner, namely, B.N.P. Singh, who is one of the Directors of M/s Bihar Gas Ltd. (in short B.G.L.) which is a competitive company of the B.A.P.L. and Sri Mukherjee passed on/divulged secret information, materials, documents, etc. to accused No. 2 and while continuing in the employment of the B.A.P.L. Sri Mukherjee joined as Chief Executive Officer of M/s B.G.L. and issued some notices in that capacity. It was, therefore, alleged that the petitioner N.C. Mukherjee entered into the conspiracy with the accused B.N.P. Singh and by committing criminal breach of trust caused wrongful loss to the complainant M/s. B.A.P.L. for the wrongful gain to themselves and also to M/s. B.G.L. It was, accordingly, prayed in the complaint-petition that the accused-persons may be summoned to face trial.

3. It has been stated in the petitions that M/s. B.A.P.L. as well M/s. B.G.L. are joint sector companies of Bihar State Industrial Corporation having a common Chairman who is the Managing Director of the said Corporation. Besides that, other directors are also common.

4. It has been denied that the petitioners entered into any conspiracy and it has been submitted that Sri N.C. Mukherjee never accepted and/or received any salary/remuneration from M/s. B.G.L. and, as a matter of fact, only negotiations were held with M/s. B.G.L. in which terms of appointment of Sri Mukherjee in M/s. B.G.L. were considered and agreed but the agreement for appointment was never executed nor Sri Mukherjee accepted any payment in M/s. B.G.L. It has been emphatically denied-that Sri Mukherjee passed on secret information of M/s B.A.P.L. to M/s B.G.L. which caused wrongful loss to M/s B.A.P.L and wrongf







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top