Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjot Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 February, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CRM-M No. 4486 of 2014.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 4486 of 2014.
Date of Decision : 06.02.2014.
Paramjot Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.(Oral)
This order shall dispose of the instant petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 02 dated 01.01.2014 under Sections 420, 406 and 342 IPC, registered at Police Station Thuliwal, District Barnala.
Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and the case paper book has been perused.
The FIR in question has been placed on record at Annexure P-1. Allegations are that Markfed Agency had stocked 57741 bags of paddy at Tridev Rice Mill, which was being operated under lease by the present petitioner. The miller i.e. the petitioner was to deliver milled rice. It is further alleged that the petitioner delivered 8617 quintals 64 kgs. of rice to the FCI in the account of Markfed Agency and the balance due rice against the petitioner comes to 4922 quintals 62 kgs. which has not been Kanchan 2014.02.11 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M No. 4486 of 2014.
2delivered. Accordingly, Ram Singh, Salesman (custodian) of the Markfed Agency conducted a stock checking in the premises of the miller on 14.12.2013 and the outstanding stock was found available in the premises of the miller. The Government is stated to have given permission to the mill owners to deliver rice to FCI from 13.12.2013 to 13.01.2014. Further allegations are that in spite of repeatedly calling upon the petitioner to deliver the afore- noticed arrears of rice yet the same was not done. Accordingly, Markfed Agency even deployed a Watchman to ensure the safety of the balance stock. Categoric allegations are that on 31.12.2013 the petitioner accompanied by certain unidentified persons incapacitated the Chowkidar, namely, Dalbara Singh and lifted the stock lying in the mill on Trucks and thereby shifted the outstanding paddy stock/milled rice to an undisclosed destination and that too unauthorisedly. The allegation as such is of misappropriation of such stock of the Markfed Agency which was lying as a trust with the petitioner in the miller premises.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would, vehemently, argue that it was open for the Markfed Agency to take resort to the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement in pursuance to which the paddy stock had been given to the miller in question for rice milling. Counsel would otherwise fairly concede that there has been an unauthorised shifting of stocks. On a pointed query having been put as regards the monetary value of such outstanding stock of paddy/milled rice i.e. 4922 quintals and 62 kgs. which has been concededly shifted without any due authorization, counsel would submit that the value would be in Kanchan 2014.02.11 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M No. 4486 of 2014.
3excess of `50 lacs.
In the light of such factual position, where such a huge stock of paddy/milled rice has been unauthorisedly shifted by the petitioner and the recovery of which is still to be effected and coupled with the conduct of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that he does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.
For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is dismissed.
February 06, 2014. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
kanchan JUDGE
Kanchan
2014.02.11 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh