9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany. His case is that accused No. 1 issued a circular, No. GM/S/75, dated August 1, 1975, inviting security deposits from the employees of the company. The complainant, in compliance with the said direction deposited a sum of Rs. 440 with the company, vide receipt dated August 1, 1975. The accused never deposited the security money in the Post Office Savings Bank Account or in any scheduled bank as provided in section 417 of the Companies Act. The company thus knowingly and with mala fide intention contravened the terms of the agreement as well as the provisions of the Companies Act. On or about August 18, 1980, the complainant made a written demand for the return of his security deposit but the accused persons neither acknowledged the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same. The Metropolitan Magistrate went wrong in carving out a plausible defence for the accused persons. Once the complainant has succeeded in proving the circular and the deposit of the security amount, its non-payment by itself is enough to prove the misappropriation. The respondents have contested the petition. None of these contentions are to their liking, as they have pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence, what to talk of prima facie evidence, to bring the case within the four corners of the sections sought to be invoked against the accused persons. According to learned counsel, the fault of not realising the security deposit lies on the complainant who failed to surrender the receipt or execute an indemnity bond again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on record or not is the question that requires to be gone into. The issuance of circular dated August 1, 1975, by the company is not in dispute. Under this circular, the management, besides declaring 20% bonus for the year 1974, was pleased to further declare an ad hoc payment amounting to 10% of the wages for the said year to the employees as a gesture of goodwill and to assist them to provide cash security to the company, against embezzlement, carelessness, negligence, fraud, etc. if committed by the employees. The said 10% payment was to remain with the company for a period of 5 years, and during this period the employees were to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Certain conditions were laid down for the repayment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for their own use. This evidence is missing. Rather the report of the chartered accountant is that the company has complied with the provisions of Companies Act with regard to the deposits accepted from the public. The findings of the auditors of the company are a complete answer to the contention of the petitioner. The conclusion of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is in consonance with the legal proposition and the evidence on record. He has looked into the problem from all angles. His finding is quite in conformity with the oral as well as documentary evidence led and proved on record by the complainant. The impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse, calling for interference. In the result I see no force in the revision petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
