Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Pal Mahajan vs Ralson India Ltd. And Ors. on 22 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: [1995]211ITR828(P&H)
JUDGMENT A.S. Nehra, J.
1. Rajinder Pal Mahajan has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the impugned order dated September 24, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are :
A case was registered, vide FIR No. 230 dated December 7, 1992, at Police Station, Focal Point, Ludhiana, under Sections 406, 408, 409, 467, 471 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, against Rajinder Pal Mahajan accused. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the accused was appointed as Financial Controller-cum-Company Secretary of Ralson India Limited, Ludhiana, and joined the company in that capacity on November 29, 1985.
3. During the course of his employment, he used to get the signatures of Shri Sanjeev Pahwa, managing director, on blank cheques and transfer advices. The abuse of position by the accused came to light when, as a result of the raid on his premises by the Income-tax Department, FDRs amounting to Rs. 55,33,129, blank cheques and transfer advices were seized from the possession of the accused. On examining the accounts of the company, the management found that the accused had withdrawn an amount of Rs, 1.29 lakhs from the accounts of the company from the Punjab National Bank, Branch Dhandari Kalan, and the said amount had not been accounted for in the books of account of the company and thereby the accused had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount and had misappropriated the same to his own use by getting FDRs and the property in the names of his relations. He had cheated the company by signing in fictitious names and withdrawing huge amounts in collusion with the bank officials. During the course of investigation by the police, an amount of Rs. 40,58,412 along with Indira Vikas Patras valued at Rs. 9,10,000 was recovered from the possession of the accused.
4. An application was made for the release of the currency and Indira Vikas Patras on superdari. The application was dismissed by Shri Nagin-derjit Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, vide his order dated March 2, 1993, on the ground that both the parties were laying claim to the amount of Rs. 40,58,412. This order does not say anything about the Indira Vikas Patras. Thereafter, another application was moved before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, which was dismissed, vide order dated June 7, 1993, on the ground that an application having already been dismissed by the court of Shri Naginderjit Singh, vide order dated March 2, 1993, no fresh application was maintainable.
5. Respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition against the order dated March 2, 1993, passed by the trial court before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. When the revision petition was pending, the Income-tax Department also filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge pleading that the trial court be directed to release the money along with the Indira Vikas Patras to the Income-tax Department.
6. The revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 was opposed on the ground that the same is time-barred. When this objection was raised, respondent No. 1 filed an application for condoning the delay. After hearing the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay in filing the revision petition and held that there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. The application filed by the Income-tax Department was held to be not maintainable. The Additional Sessions Judge observed that admittedly the accused (petitioner) from whose possession such a huge amount was recovered, was a paid employee of the company ; that there is no explanation whatsoever from his side to account for possession of such a huge amount in hard currency, which can be safely said to be disproportionate to his ostensible means ; that the allegations are that he committed a breach of trust and thus misappropriated funds belonging to the company to the tune of Rs. 1.29 lakhs (Rs. 1,29,000) by abusing his position as Financial Controller-cum-Company Secretary and that apparently, in his capacity as Financial Controller-cum-Company Secretary, the accused (petitioner) had easy access to the funds and had means to misappropriate the same by committing breach of trust of the company. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, held that, in the circumstances of the case, the company appears to be entitled to the custody of the amount lying in the custody of the court and that it would not be just and proper to keep such a huge amount locked in sealed boxes, thereby keeping it out of circulation resulting in national loss. Accordingly, the Additional Sessions Judge ordered the amount of Rs. 40,58,412 to be released on the company's furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs (Rs. 50,00,000) to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa Magistrate, undertaking to comply with and duly perform the final orders of the trial court regarding the payment of the amount at the conclusion of the trial. The Additional Sessions Judge further held that in case the accused (petitioner) is found to be entitled to the payment of the amount, the company shall be liable to pay the amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum for the period of retention of the amount.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated September 24, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is illegal and without jurisdiction. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also erred in condoning the delay in filing the revision petition.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that the order dated September 24, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is legal and within jurisdiction. He further submitted that the delay in filing the revision petition was condoned when respondent No. 1 was able to prove that there were sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. It has been further contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the amount of Rs. 40,58,412 has been released to the company on its furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and that, therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is just and proper and that it has been passed in the interest of justice.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of respondent No. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has exercised his jurisdiction properly in condoning the delay in filing the revision petition, because respondent was able to prove that there were sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. Since the amount of Rs. 40,58,412 has been released to the company on its furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is legal and within his jurisdiction. The petitioner did not file any application before the trial court for superdari of this amount. He also did not file a revision petition when the application of the company was declined on March 2, 1993. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner shows that he was simply interested in opposing the application of the company for superdari of the amount of Rs. 40,58,412. The interest of the petitioner has been properly safeguarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that in case the accused (petitioner) is found to be entitled to the payment of the amount, the company shall be liable to pay the amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum for the period of retention of the amount. Therefore, no injustice has been done to the petitioner.
10. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.