Back
2019 Supreme(All) 670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Rakesh Deepak Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 606 of 2013
Decided On : 12-03-2019
For the Appellant : Sushil Shukla.
For the Respondent: Samir Sharma.
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 – section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 397 – Misappropriation of money – Whether charge framed under section 406 against the revisionist has complied with the particulars as to time, place and person as prescribed in section 212 (2) Cr.P.C –Held, charge in question clearly mentions about person, place and time. The charge further mentions about ingredients of section 405/406 IPC such as entrustment, of collecting money and dishonest misappropriation of such money – Charge has complete particulars which are "reasonably sufficient" for the purpose of notice as required in section 212 (1) Cr.P.C – Tevisionist not been able to show that alleged defect in framing of charge has caused real prejudice to him or that he was not able to know as to what was the real case against him and that he could not defend himself property – Revision dismissed. (Para 19, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Misappropriation of money – Whether charge framed under section 406 against the revisionist has complied with the particulars as to time, place and person as prescribed in section 212 (2) Cr.P.C.
Findings of the court:
Charge in question clearly mentions about person, place and time. The charge further mentions about ingredients of section 405/406 IPC such as entrustment, of collecting money and dishonest misappropriation of such money – Charge has complete particulars which are "reasonably sufficient" for the purpose of notice as required in section 212 (1) Cr.P.C – Tevisionist not been able to show that alleged defect in framing of charge has caused real prejudice to him or that he was not able to know as to what was the real case against him and that he could not defend himself property.
Result : Revision dismissed
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Revisionist has approached this Court under section 397 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by learned Trial court in the discharge application filed by the revisionist under section 339 Cr.P.C. The revisionist further assailed the order dated 31.1.2013 (amended with permission of this Court vide order dated 16.4.2013) whereby the charges under section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC have been framed against the Revisionist.
2. This Court has passed the following order on 29.4.2013.
"Counter affidavit filed on behalf of complainant is taken on record.
List on 20.5.2013.
Meanwhile, Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the revisionist.
State may also file counter affidavit if it so likes by the next date.
Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that in the charge no. 1 framed by the Trial Court, neither the gross sum of amount allegedly misappropriated by the revisionist is disclosed nor the dates on which such misappropriation was made has been mentioned and there has been a total non-compliance of provisions of 212 (2) Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in Crl. Case No. 7646 of 2011, State vs. Rakesh Deepak Shukla, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 P.S. Sector 58 District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the Court of C.J.M. Gautam Budh Nagar shall remain stayed."
3. The point for consideration in the present revision petition is that whether in the present case, the charge framed under section 406 against the revisionist has complied with the particulars as to time, place and person as prescribed in section 212 (2) Cr.P.C. and in case said charge is bereft of such particulars, whether such error or omission is material so much as the accused has been misled by such error or omission which has occasioned a failure of justice as mentioned in section 215 Cr.P.C.
4. Succinctly the facts of the present case are as follows.
(i) Opposite Party No 2/complainant is a German Multinational Company engaged in manufacturing of Homeopathic medicines.
(ii) The applicant was employed in the said company on the post of Area Manager (OTC) and was given the charge of Lucknow, Delhi and Punjab areas. The work of the applicant on behalf of the company was to conduct dealings with clients, book orders, collect payments, recommend for appointment of new dealers/distributors of the Company, to arrange meetings of the dealers/distributors and to deposit the same in the bank account of the Company etc.
(iii) The Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. bearing Number 167 of 2009 against the applicant and seven others before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar.
(iv) In the application it was mentioned that the revisionist is Regional Manager and the area allotted to him is Lucknow, Delhi and Punjab. The work of the revisionist is to deal with the parties, book the order, collect payment, appoint new dealer/distributor, introduce them with the officers of the company and to deposit the cheques/drafts received in the account of the company. But for the last about one year the revisionist was not working properly and he has appointed dealer/distributor without giving any information to the company. By playing fraud, the revisionist has supplied the product of the company unauthorizedly to different firms, used the letter-head of the company unauthorizedly damaging the goodwill of the company and misappropriated the charges collected from proposed dealers in his own account and caused loss of about Rs. 36 lakhs to the company. The learned Magistrate after considering each and every aspect of the matter directed to register the case and investigate the matter and in consequence, thereof, the First Information Report in the present case was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons at case Crime No. 758 of 2009 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sector 58, Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(v) Thereafter t
