1994 (4) TMI 54 - HC - Income Tax

Judge affirms order for criminal breach of trust, dismisses petition, upholds jurisdiction.

The Judge upheld the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in a petition seeking to quash an order related to criminal breach of trust ... Search And Seizure Issues:1. Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash an order dated September 24, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Ludhiana.2. Delay in filing the revision petition and condonation of the same.3. Release of a significant amount of money to the company on furnishing a bank guarantee.4. Jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge in passing the order.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash an order dated September 24, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Ludhiana. The case involved allegations of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of funds, and cheating by the accused, who was a paid employee of the company. The accused was alleged to have withdrawn a substantial amount from the company's accounts without proper authorization. The Additional Sessions Judge, in the impugned order, directed the release of a significant sum of Rs. 40,58,412 to the company on the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs. The judge also mentioned that if the accused is found entitled to the payment, the company would be liable to pay the amount along with interest at a specified rate.Regarding the delay in filing the revision petition, the Additional Sessions Judge had condoned the delay after finding sufficient grounds for the condonation. The petitioner contended that the order and the condonation of delay were illegal and without jurisdiction. However, the counsel for respondent No. 1 argued that the order was legal, within jurisdiction, and passed in the interest of justice. The counsel further emphasized that the release of funds to the company was justified and proper.Upon hearing both parties, the Judge found merit in respondent No. 1's contentions. The Judge held that the Additional Sessions Judge had properly exercised jurisdiction in condoning the delay, as sufficient grounds were proven. The release of funds to the company on a bank guarantee basis was deemed just and in the interest of justice. The petitioner's failure to take appropriate legal steps earlier indicated a lack of genuine interest in the matter. The Judge concluded that no injustice had been done to the petitioner and dismissed the petition, affirming the legality and jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge's order.In conclusion, the Judge upheld the order, emphasizing the proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Additional Sessions Judge and the safeguarding of interests in the case. The dismissal of the petition indicated the lack of merit in the petitioner's claims, thereby affirming the legality and appropriateness of the impugned order.