Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has observed that though the complainant-company was directed to produce the original documents and the complainant-company was given long time for the same but even after that the complainant-company did not produce the relevant documents and only produced the photocopies of the said documents, which created doubt in the mind of the Deputy Commissioner. It is next submitted by learned senior counsel that there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the complainant-company as to why it withheld the original documents from the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih hence, it is submitted that the complainant-company is squarely to blame for the said adverse report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. It is next submitted by learned senior counsel that delivery of possession of the land held by the vendors consequent upon the said facilitation agreement, to the complainant-company in the year 2008 and there is categorical averments of delivery of possession having been made in each of the individual sale deed which is not disputed by the complainant-company, coupled with the fact that after execution of the sale-deed, all the lands were admittedly mutated in the name of the company and undisputedly, the company paid land revenue in respect of the said land for a considerable period of time, shows that at least the petitioners had no knowledge or any mens rea for committing any offence punishable under any law. It is next submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the dispute at best is a civil dispute and no dishonest intention has been attributed to the petitioners at the time of the entrustment of money to them and though in another patch of land, the petitioners consequent upon a separate facilitation agreement, could not arrange the lands to be sold, the complainant-company instituted a separate case but the said case has been settled between the parties as is evident from the order dated 05.09.2012 passed in ABA No. 1210 of 2012 passed by a coordinate Bench of this court upon paying a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/by the petitioners and the petitioners were directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 26,91,160/- but as they could not arrange
