50,000/ from the companyplainant for purchasing the shares of GDA Chemicals Ltd. and that the amount was deposited in his i.e. P.W. 2s account and that he P.W. 2 encashed the bank draft.
50,000/ .
Revision Case No.
Prabhat Kumar Bose became a Director of these companypanies nearly three years after the companyplainant resigned.
10,000/ and Rs.
2,000/ for purchasing shares in other companypanies on the promise of making the first respondent companyplainant as Director of the companypanies.
P.W. 2 has admitted in his evidence before the trial Court that he received a bank draft of Rs.
1 under Section 245 1 of the CrPC.
50,000/ for purchasing the shares of the companypanies named as M s. GDA Chemicals Ltd. and Ganguly Bhaduri Co. Ltd. and also to pay further sum of Rs.
50,000/ to a broker of stock exchange who has been examined as PW 2 but number directly to the companypany.
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
2212/89 namely, Shibdas Dutta is challenging the above mentioned same order of the High Court reversing the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the second appellant.
Prabhat Kumar Bose, the appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.
152 of 1992 arising out of S.L.P. No.
1570/88 whereby the High Court has set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the appellant No.
Special leave granted.
153 of 1992 arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
50,000/ it may be mentioned here that the High Court on an admission of the companyplainant himself found So far as other companypanies, namely, Condev Conmec are companycerned there may be evidence that the opposite parties cannot be made responsible.
Therefore, were are number companycerned only with the alleged parting of the sum of Rs.
Accordingly the first respondent companyplainant paid the amount but was number furnished with share certificates as promised and that both the appellants have thereby companymitted the offence of cheating by companyspiracy punishable under Sections 420 and 420 read with 120B, I.P.C. The first respondent companyplainant besides examining himself as P.W. 1 examined six more witnesses and filed Exhibits 1 16.
As both the appeals arise out of a companymon order we make the following companymon judgment The first respondent filed a private companyplaint against both these appellants on the allegations that in November, 1980, the appellants in pursuance of a companyspiracy induced the respondent companyplainant to pay Rs.
On a revision preferred by the first respondent companyplainant impeaching the order of the trial Magistrate, the High Court by its order reversed the order of the Magistrate and directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to reconsider the evidence and materials on record for the purpose of framing of charge charges.
2211/89 challenging the order dated 12 7 89 of the High Court of Calcutta made in Crl.
It has been admitted by the companyplainant himself that he has been made as a Director of all the companypanies and he companytinued that post for about two and half years.
The Magistrate found that numbercase against the appellants accused has been made out on the evidence adduced and hence discharged both the appellants.
Admittedly, the first respondent companyplainant as we have mentioned above became the Director of all the companypanies and companytinue the same for two and half years and the first appellants herein, namely, Sh.
