Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. Barman Roy, J.
Amal Kumar Bhattacharji
Arun Kumar Bhutoria
Versus
State of West Bengal and Ors.
C.R.R. Nos. 1404 - 1406 of 1999 and C.R.R. Nos. 2094-2096 of 1999
Decided On : November 9, 2000
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - JOINT OWNERSHIP - COMPLAINT QUASHING - PARTNERSHIP - TRUST - COGNIZANCE - SEARCH WARRANT - REVISION PETITION - PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY - ENTANGLEMENT - CRIMINAL LIABILITY - REMEDIES UNDER CIVIL LAW - OWNERSHIP OR BENEFICIAL INTEREST - DOMINIUM OVER PROPERTY - CRIMINAL INTENTION - CRIMINAL APPROPRIATION - DIRECTOR OF BANK - DEPOSITORS' MONEY - DIRECTOR'S LIABILITY - CUSTODY OF VEHICLES - OTHER REMEDIES UNDER LAW - DISMISSAL OF REVISION PETITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a director of City Scape Developers Private Limited, lodged a complaint against the accused petitioners, alleging that they had misappropriated three vehicles purchased from a joint account in which the complainant's company and the accused's company were joint owners. The accused petitioners filed revision petitions to quash the complaint and the orders issued by the magistrate for the search and seizure of the vehicles.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint did not disclose any offense of criminal breach of trust as the accused petitioners were joint owners of the vehicles along with the complainant's company. The court relied on the agreement between the parties, which showed that the vehicles were purchased from a joint account and that the accused petitioners had a 60% share in the ownership of the vehicles. The court also held that the magistrate's orders for the search and seizure of the vehicles were bad in law and quashed them.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint disclosed an offense of criminal breach of trust? 2. Whether the accused petitioners were entrusted with dominion over the vehicles? 3. Whether the magistrate's orders for the search and seizure of the vehicles were valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complaint did not disclose an offense of criminal breach of trust because the accused petitioners were joint owners of the vehicles along with the complainant's company. The court relied on the agreement between the parties, which showed that the vehicles were purchased from a joint account and that the accused petitioners had a 60% share in the ownership of the vehicles. The court also held that the magistrate's orders for the search and seizure of the vehicles were bad in law and quashed them. 2. The court held that the accused petitioners were not entrusted with dominion over the vehicles because they were joint owners of the vehicles along with the complainant's company. The court relied on the agreement between the parties, which showed that the vehicles were purchased from a joint account and that the accused petitioners had a 60% share in the ownership of the vehicles. 3. The court held that the magistrate's orders for the search and seizure of the vehicles were bad in law because the complaint did not disclose an offense of criminal breach of trust.
Final Decision: The court allowed the accused petitioners' revision petitions and quashed the complaint and the magistrate's orders for the search and seizure of the vehicles. The court also dismissed the complainant's revision petitions.
S. Barman Roy, J.
All these six applications were analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common order as all these applications between the same parties involve identical questions of law and facts.
2. C.R.R. - 2094/99 to 2096/99 were filed by the accused petitioners for quashing the complaint case No. 208/99, complaint case No. 209/99 and complaint case No. 210/99 pending before the learned C.J.M., Alipore, South (24) Pgs. on the ground that none of these complaints disclosed commission of any offence. Facts of C.R.R. 2094/99 in brief are that complainant O.P. No.2 Amal Bhattacharji lodged a complaint being complaint case No. 208/99 before the said C.J.M. against the petitioners alleging, inter alia; that Amal Bhattacharji is Director of City Scape Developers Private Limited, which is private limited company having its registered office at Calcutta.
3. Petitioner No.1 Arun Bhutoria was made a nominated director in the Board of the City Scape Developers Private Ltd. sometime in 1993. He was so nominated by Akla Builders Private Ltd. being a Private Ltd. Company incorporated under the Companies Act. Said Akla Builders Private Ltd. entered into a development agreement with the said City Scape Developers Private Ltd. when the later company was constructing a market complex and construction of one block of the said market complex was almost at a finishing stage and the other block of the said market complex was also in the advanced stage of construction. Said market complex had only two blocks apart from a staff quarter. Accused petitioner No.1 Arun Bhutoria was taken in the Board of City Scape Developers Private Ltd. in terms of the said agreement dated 7.8.92 with the stipulation that on fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the said agreement, term of the directorship of the accused petitioner No.1 would come to an end. Later on a suit was filed for a declaration that the said agreement is void and unenforceable in law. By virtue of a resolution dated 21.9.95 of the said City Scape Developers Private Ltd., accused petitioner No.1 Arun Bhutoria was authorised as Director of the Company to make, enter into, execute and deliver to the M/s. 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. all documents including loan agreement, promissory notes with regard to hire agreement for purchase of a vehicle i.e. Cielo Car from Daewoo Motors. In accordance with the said resolution City Scape Developers Private Ltd. took finance of Rs. 6,42,000 for purchase of the said Cielo Car and made an initial deposit by cheque of Rs. 1,61,000.00 only as well as further charges of Rs. 40,000/- and all the amounts towards insurance, road tax etc. The car finance so taken was to be repaid with interest in 36 equal monthly installments. Accused petitioner No.1 Arun Bhutoria executed the hire purchase agreement on behalf of the City Scape Developers Private Ltd. and the Company duly paid the said initial amounts as already stated above and other charges. City Scape Developers Private Ltd. also handed over 36 post dated cheques to Arun Bhutoria payable to 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. month by month for depositing the same in advance with the said 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. towards repayment of the said loan including all interest thereon. All the said 36 cheques were post dated month by month commencing from 22.9.95 and ending on 10.8.98 drawn on the Bank account of the said City Scape Developers Private Ltd. with the Bank of Maharashtra, S.P. Mukherjee Road as monthly installments towards repayment of the loan for the said car. On or about 5.11.95 accused petitioner No.1 Arun Bhutoria signed the hire purchase agreement as representative of City Scape Developers Private Ltd. But the copy of the said hire purchase agreement between the City Scape Developers Private Ltd. and 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. and all other related documents were not received from the car finance company. However, the complainant ultimately o
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
