The court ruled that non-delivery of goods at the complainant's address constitutes an offence under IPC, allowing the trial to proceed despite claims of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)

1. Heard Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Assam (respondent No. 1) as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. This Criminal Petition has been registered on filing of an application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner, namely, Shri Pabitra Kumar Hira, impugning the judgment and order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the learned Session Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Criminal Revision Case No. 1/2022, whereby, the said criminal revision was allowed and the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai, in CR Case No. 243/2014 was set aside. By the aforesaid order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Darrang, Mangaldai had framed charges against the respondent No.2 under Section 420/406/385 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows:

i. The complainant (present petitioner) is the proprietor of M/s D & N Enterprise, Mangaldai, Assam and of M/s Hira Feed Stores, Mangaldai, and he is doing the business of power tillers and tractors. For several years, he had procured Khajana Power tillers from M/s Khajana Agricultural Equipment’s Limited, Kolkata for supplying the same to the Government of Assam.

ii. The petitioner herein had filed a complaint case in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang at Mangaldai, against two accused persons, namely, Shri Anil Todi @ Anil Kumar Todi (Respondent No. 2 herein) and Shri P.K. Sarkar under Section 383/385/403/406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint case was registered as CR Case No. 243/2014.

iii. In the aforementioned complaint, filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai, the present petitioner has alleged that accused No. 1 therein, namely, Shri Anil Todi, (present respondent No. 2), who is the Managing Director of M/s Khajana Agricultural Equipment’s Limited, as well as M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited, which had its office at Kolkata and also at Guwahati, as well as the accused No.2, therein, namely, Mr. P.K. Sarkar, who is employee of the accused No.1, have failed to deliver the 40 numbers of power tillers to the complainant, in spite of the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to the accused persons for the same.

iv. It is stated in the complaint petition that on 17.03.2005, the complainant (present petitioner), visited the common office of M/s Khazana Agricultural Equipment Limited, as well as Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited at Strand Road, Kolkata, to purchase 40 numbers of Khazana S-1100 power tillers. On that day. the accused persons had instructed the complainant (present petitioner), to make an advance payment of Rs. 25 lakhs for the purchase of a forced power tillers by demand draft in favour of M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited as the delivery of the said power tillers was to be done by the Guwahati office of Shivdurga Finance and Investment, Private Limited.

v. Accordingly, the complainant (present petitioner), handed over a demand draft for Rs. 25 lakhs to the accused No.1 (Respondent No. 2) at his Kolkata office on 17.03.2005 and also wrote a letter bearing No. D&NE/MLD/PT/2005-2006/39 then and there and requested the accused to dispatch the said power tiller within 20.03.2005. The accused No.1 (Respondent No. 2) acknowledged the receipt of the said demand draft and the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was credited to the account of M/s Shiv Durga Finance and Investment Private Limited.

vi. However, thereafter, the accused persons failed to deliver the 40 numbers of power tiller, as promised to the complainant (petitioner), in spite of repeated requests.

vii. Apart from the aforesaid allegation, the petitioner