Praveen Kumar Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 4731 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22120 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that charge-sheet under Section 406 of I.P.C has been submitted after the investigation against the F.I.R, that was lodged in Case Crime No. 1211 of 2015 under Sections 406, 427, 452, 504, 506 of I.P.C, Police Station - Kavi Nagar, District - Ghaziabad. 

It is further submitted that certain articles were supplied to the applicant's company and there is dispute regarding the payment of that materials and on the basis of non-payment of prices of the articles, first information report has been lodged and any matter regarding the sale offences under Section 406 of I.P.C, is not attracted.

Learned counsel draw the attention of this Courts towards the law in rulings in the case of Sate of Gujarat v. Jaswantial Nathalal (1968) 2 SCR 408 : AIR 1968 SC 700 : 1968 Cri LJ 803, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, which is as follows:-

"The expression 'entrustment' carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that properly is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Further the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment. It is true that the government had sold the cement in question to BSS solely for the purpose of being used in connection with the construction work referred to earlier. But that circumstance does not make the transaction in question anything other than a sale. After delivery of the cement, the government had neither any right nor dominion over it. If the purchaser or his representative had failed to comply with the requirements of any law relating to cement control, he should have been prosecuted for the same. But we are unable to hold that there was any breach of trust."

In the circumstances notice be issued to respondent no. 2, who may file counter affidavit within four weeks from today. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter and list immediately thereafter.

In the meantime no coercive action will be taken against the applicants in pursuance to Criminal Case No. 5712 of 2016 and the charge-sheet filed therein, which is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Case No. 5712 of 2016 - (State Vs. Pramod & Ors.).

Order Date :- 02.08.2016.

Vinod.