IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Brajesh Kumar Srivastava - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Opposite Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 54731 of 2015
Decided On : 03-05-2016
[MANU/MH/1561/2010]—Assented.
[(1996) 7 SCC 685]; [(2012) 6 SCC 760]—Relied.
This is an application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) for quashing the order dated November 04, 2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Chakia P.S. Case No. 206 of 2015 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the application dated September 28, 2015, wherein it was prayed that the office premises of UAE Exchange and Financial Services Limited (for short ‘the Company’), Motihari, East Champaran, which was sealed by the police in connection with the aforesaid police case registered under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 and 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short ‘FEMA’) on the report of one Roshan Kumar, be unsealed and the Company be allowed to restore the business of the said Branch as it was incurring heavy loss due to the said sealing.
2. The facts concerning the instant case in brief are that the informant Raushan Kumar lodged a written information with Chakia Police Station at about 7.00 p.m. on September 23, 2015 alleging therein that in the year 2014 he had given his Voter ID Card and PAN Card to one Yogesh Mishra, travel staff of the Company to prepare a passport. He received his passport in one and a half months but the Xerox of the Voter ID Card and PAN Card were not returned and the same were kept by the aforesaid Yogesh Mishra. He went to Malaysia on that passport and after remaining there for five days, came back. On September 23, 2015, he came to know that on September 17, 2015 at about 11.00 a.m., by making his forged signature, Manjeet Kumar, Ankit Pandey, Chandramohan Chaudhary and Vikas Kumar Srivastava, all staff of the Company and Indradeo Sah, the Guard of the Company have defalcated Rs. 65,840/-. Similarly, they have also defalcated Rs.23,781/- by making signature of Indradeo Sah. The informant further alleged that these people defalcated the foreign currency. He also alleged that the employees of the Company also get the passports prepared and they also deal with foreign currency. While preparing the passport, they return the original Voter ID Card and PAN Card and retain the Xerox copy of those documents, which are misused by the aforesaid employees of the Company by forging signatures of bonafide holders of those identity cards. When he came to know that foreign currency worth Rs.39 lakhs of the Company has been seized by the police near Chakia Toll Plaza, then he informed the police.
3. Consequent upon lodging of the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’), the police sealed the premises of the Company office at Motihari, East Champaran. They also seized currency and registers of the money transactions.
4. Thereafter, petitioner no.1 filed an application in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari on September 28, 2015 for unsealing the office premises of the Company and allowing the Company to restore the business of the said Branch as it was incurring heavy loss due to the said sealing. The aforesaid application of petitioner no.1 was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, vide order dated November 04, 2015, which being relevant is reproduced below :-
4/11/2015 - The applicant, an employee of U.A.E. Exchange and Financial Services Ltd. has filed this application dated 28/9/2015 by which he has urged that the concerned authority had valid licence from R.B.I. in this regard up till 31st August, 2014, later on before one month from the date of expiry of the licence according to the provision of Reserve Bank of India had applied for its renewal and according to the provision contained by R.B.I. his licence for this purpose is in existence unless cancelled. According to the applicant his transaction is fair and in accordance with the law and the police has sealed the said exchange centre restraining from its business and it is incurring very lo
M.T. Enrica Lexie & Anr. Vs. Doramma & Ors. [(2012) 6 SCC 760]
State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.