Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev Kumar on 8 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAYANK NAYAK, MM02,
KKD/SHD/DELHI.
R.No. 78963/16
FIR No. 152/03
PS : Seemapuri
08.05.2018
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar At 4.00 PM.
Present: None.
By way of this order, I shall dispose of an application for discharge, filed by accused Sanjeev Kumar.
The present FIR was lodged on the basis complaint filed by one Vikas Chawla. The case of the prosecution is that goods worth Rs.15 lakhs were booked through accused Sanjeev Kumar for carriage from Agra to Delhi. However, the goods were not delivered by the accused at the destination. On the contrary, accused wrote a letter dated 27.04.2003, acknowledging the retention of goods, entrusted to them by the complainant. Despite requests, goods were not returned.
The chargesheet in the present case was filed and vide order dated 12.07.2005, further investigation was directed by the court on the ground that original consignment slip have not been seized and Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, to whom the letter was addressed by the complainant has not been made as a State v. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 4 witness. Pursuant to the directions of the court, supplementary chargesheet was filed. However, still no original consignment slip were placed on record. This conduct speaks volume about the apathy with which the investigation in the present case was conducted. The record is the replete with instances of investigating officers not complying with the directions of the court. So much so that despite lapse of many years, the supplementary charge sheet was filed without bringing on record any new material including the original consignment slip.
Coming to the facts of the case, the case has been premised on the retention of the goods of the complainant entrusted to the accused for the purpose of carriage. Ld. APP for the State has argued that there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused. He has submitted that the property has been recovered from the accused and hence, prima facie case is made out against the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that chargesheet has been filed u/s 385/407 IPC. He has submitted that the chargesheet is silent about the ingredients of section 385 IPC. Hence, there arises no question of charge being framed under 385 IPC. Further, he has submitted that mere retention of the goods by the accused does not make him liable for criminal breach of trust. He has relied upon Section 170 Indian Contract Act to argue that the accused had a lien over the goods handed over to me and hence accused should be discharged. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Praveen Kumar vs. State and of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Piyara Khatoon vs. State v. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 4 Yaseen Ali to argue that mere retention of goods does not constitute criminal breach of trust.
I have heard the arguments as well as perused the record. The complainant has alleged that goods were handed over to the accused for the purpose of transportation. However, the accused retained the goods and wrote a letter for making the payment instead of releasing/transporting the goods. The case of the prosecution is that by retaining the goods entrusted to the accused and refusing to release them, accused has committed offences, alleged in the chargesheet i.e. Section 385/407 IPC.
With respect to section 385 IPC, it has to be mentioned that same pertains to extortion. The offence of extortion involves putting a person into a fear of injury to induce the person to deliver any property or valuable security. In this case, there is nothing on record to show that accused had put complainant into fear of any injury to commit extortion. Merely writing a letter and asking for payment for the release of goods, does not bring the act of accused within the ambit of offence of extortion. Hence, offence u/s 385 IPC is not made out even if the prosecution version is taken on face value.
Coming on to the offence u/s 407 IPC, it has to be shown that criminal breach of trust has been committed by the accused persons. The allegation is that the goods entrusted to the accused, have been retained by him. In order to complete the offence of criminal breach of trust, it is required to be shown that accused had dishonest intention and that the property was misappropriated/used or disposed of. In this case, accused is alleged to have only retained the goods.
State v. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 4It is not the case of the prosecution that the goods have been used or disposed of by the accused. This is amplified by the fact that the goods entrusted to the accused were ultimately released to the complainant by the order of the court.
Further, prosecution is also required to show that there was dishonest intention on the part of the accused. There is also no material to this effect. On the contrary, accused has written a letter acknowledging the receipt of goods and demanding payment due to him. Hence, dishonest intention on part of the accused, has not been established. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the accused are squarely applicable to the present case and hence offence of criminal breach of trust is not made out on the basis of material produced by the prosecution. This being the situation, for accused Sanjeev stands discharged offence u/s 385/407 IPC.
Accused Sanjeev is directed to furnish Bail bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C on 10.05.2018.
(Prayank Nayak)
MM02/KKD/SHD/Delhi
Digitally 08.05.2018
signed by
PRAYANK
PRAYANK NAYAK
NAYAK Date:
2018.05.09
12:58:44
+0530
State v. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 4