Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous whereby Bihari Lal and Rinku Kumar partners of M/s Laxmi Rice Milk, Mehraj, Tehsil Bhatinda have prayed for the grant of bail to them in case F.I.R. No. 45 dated June 17, 1998 registered at Police Station Phul under Sections 409 I.P.C./7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Rice Sheller M/s Laxmi Rice Mills was taken on lease in the years 19971998 by the petitioners. Markfed brought paddy for being shelled into rice in the said Rice Sheller. They were required to hand over the rice after shelling paddy to the Food Corporation of India in the account of Markfed. Rent was required to be paid by the Branch of Markfed, Rampura Phul. On letter No. 1117 of Markfed Branch Rampura Phul dated June 15, 1998, this case was registered against Bihari Lal and Rinku Kumar, the partners of M/s Laxmi Rice Mills. As per that letter, 40046 bags of paddy total weighing 26029 quintals 90 kilograms were delivered to them in their Rice Sheller against receipt by the Markfed Branch Rampura Phul for milling. In accordance with the instructions of the Punjab Government the milled rice was to be delivered to the Food Corporation of India in the account of the Markfed but upto 12.6.1998, the said Sheller delivered 14988 bags weighing 14194 quintals 89 kilograms 300 grams of rice to the Food Corporation of India. Out of this, the papers of 745 bags weighing 704 quintals 52 kilograms (three trucks of rice) were not delivered to the Markfed Branch, Rampura Phul, after getting the same from the Food Corporation of India. On June 12, 1998, on inspection of the Sheller, it was found that only 377 bags weighing 350 quintals 61 kilograms of rice were lying there. As per this letter, if the rice already delivered is deducted from the total paddy, then 6760 bags of paddy were required to be there. 377 bags weighing 350 quintals 61 kilograms of rice the paddy of which comes to 834 bags were taken into possession by the Markfed. 5926 bags of paddy weighing 3851 quintals 90 kilograms were outstanding toward the Sheller which was short. As per that letter, M/s Laxmi Rice Mills of which Bihari Lal and Rinku Kumar are partners, misappropriated the said paddy, the value of which was Rs. 23,14,414.12 in addition to the value of empty bags which comes to Rs. 1,26,223.80 and, thus, the total amount misappropriated by them comes to Rs. 24,40,637.20.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the bye laws of the Markfed, all disputes relating to the business of the Federation shall be disposed of in the manner provided by the Statute governing the Co operative Societies in Punjab and the Rules framed thereunder. It was submitted that Markfed is also a Cooperative Society governed by the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It was submitted that there is a provision in the agreement, which was entered into between the Millers on the one hand and Markfed on the other that in case of any dispute, the same has to be referred to the sole Arbitrator appointed by the Markfed. It was submitted that in this case, the case was registered by the Branch Manager of the Markfed without resorting to arbitration and it would have been established during arbitration proceedings whether the petitioners have or have not mis appropriated any paddy handed over to them. It was submitted that the paddy entrusted to the petitioners was processed and the rice therefrom was supplied to the Food Corporation of India and the Branch Manager, Markfed. As such, no case under Section 409 IPC was made. It was further submitted that assuming that the prosecution case is correct only civil liability could be imposed upon the petitioners and the registration of a criminal case against them was an abuse of the process of the Court. It was further submitted that how could there be misappropriation by them when Tarsem Kumar, Joginder Singh and Om Parkash, employees of the Markfed visited the Rice Sheller daily and they supervised the shelling of paddy and the paddy which was shelled by them was taken by these employee after filling the same in the bags. It was submitted that as the petitioners were new to this business, they were handing over the shelled rice to these employees on the faith that they would hand over it to the Food Corporation of India. Sometimes these employees took their Clerk Darshan Singh and thereafter they took their new Clerk Kiranpal Singh and they used to take signatures of these Clerks. It was submitted that this case was manipulated against them by the Branch Manager when there was a rumour in the last week of May, 1998, that the Branch Manager with the help of certain employees had misappropriated rice belonging to the Markfed. It was submitted that on June 10, 1998, at about 2.00 P.M. when the petitioners were not available in the Rice Sheller and their father Shri Sohan Lal was present, 370.50 quintals of rice was also lying in the Sheller which was taken out of 878 bags of paddy out of which 300 bags of paddy were purchased by the petitioners from the shop of Parshotam Lal Yash Pal and 578 bags were purchased from the shop of Nauhar Chand Satish Kumar on October 25, 1997 and November 4, 1997 respectively. The said rice was forcibly taken away by Tarsem Kumar with the help of Joginder Singh and Om Parkash, employees of the Markfed. At about 500 P.M., that day, they were told by their father about that incident and thereupon they reported the matter to the police but no action was taken in this regard by the police. Thereafter, they approached this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15601 of 1998. On July 22, 1998, they filed Criminal Complaint against the said Branch Manager and two other employees of the Markfed who had forcibly taken away rice from their Sheller.

Case is based on documentary evidence. Petitioners have been in jail since October 8, 1998. For the recovery of the amount of paddy/rice, if mis appropriated by them, resort can be had to the arbitration. Challan has been put in. It is proverbial that the trial of such cases is sometimes a long drawn process. It is, therefore, desirable to allow bail to the petitioners. So, bail to them to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Phul.