CRM No. M-21030 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-21030 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: October 21, 2009
Satish Kumar Gupta & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate with
Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Mohd. Salim, Advocate, for the complainant.
Rajan Gupta, J (oral).
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-
arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 420,
406, 120-B IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Industrial Area,
Ludhiana City, vide FIR No.114 dated 11th July, 2009.
The FIR was lodged by one Mohd. Anwar, Director of M/s
Indkasn Furnace F.M. Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. According to the
allegations in the FIR, an order for supply of scrap was placed with S.B.
Investment Limited in U.K. In lieu of the order, $ 15000 were given as
advance money. Thereafter, four containers of scrap were sent to
CRM No. M-21030 of 2009 2
Dryport at Ludhiana. On checking of the said containers, it was found
that the same did not contain iron scrap but merely earth, in other words,
very low quality of scrap. A total payment of $ 35006, which comes to
Rs.17,55,796.70 P. in Indian currency, was made to the petitioners.
According to the allegations, the petitioners from the very beginning,
had an intention to play a fraud with the complainant and never intended
to supply the scrap as per specification.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the
entire payment was made to S.B. Investments Ltd. in U.K. and the
petitioners are not concerned with the deal in any manner. According to
the counsel, the goods were also supplied by S.B. Investments Ltd. and
thus petitioners do not figure in the transaction. Learned counsel has
also referred to document, Annexure P-9 to show that S.B. Investment
Ltd. was directly corresponding with the complainant.
Learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that
the petitioners are in fact owners of the aforesaid S.B. Investment Ltd.
The same is managed by their son-in-law. According to the counsel,
there is evidence to show that the petitioners were directly involved in
the transaction and have defrauded the complainant. Learned counsel
further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is
necessary to take the investigation to its logical end.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given
careful thought to the facts of the case.
After notice of motion was issued in this case, counsel for
CRM No. M-21030 of 2009 3
the complainant also put in appearance. On the request of counsel for
the parties, the matter was sent to the Permanent Lok Adalat of this
court to explore the possibility of settlement of the dispute as the parties
appeared to have business transaction between them. However, the file
was returned as the parties failed to resolve the dispute amicably.
From the allegations levelled in the FIR, it appears that
order for supply of steel scrap was placed with S.B. Investment Ltd. in
U.K. The scrap, which was delivered, was in fact of much inferior
quality. The instant FIR was thus lodged on the allegation that the
petitioners had cheated the complainant. The argument of the counsel
for the petitioners that the petitioners have no connection with the
transaction, appears to be devoid of force. During the course of
arguments, the counsel for the complainant also assisted the court and
showed certain proformas of Invoice, ostensibly signed by petitioner
No.2 in respect of the transaction in question. A perusal of the case
diary of the Investigating Officer, which was retained by the court, also
shows that the said invoice is on record. There are certain other
documents collected by the investigating officer which show that the
transaction was with S.B. Investment Ltd. It cannot be said at this stage
that the petitioners have no concern or connection with the firm S.B.
Investment Ltd.
Under the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to
concession of pre-arrest bail. There being direct allegation against the
petitioners of cheating and fraud, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
CRM No. M-21030 of 2009 4
devoid of merit and is hereby rejected. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
The case diary be returned to the Investigating Officer.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
October 21, 2009
‘rajpal’