Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging misappropriation of Markfed paddy during shelling. The Court held that the quantity deficit was significant and no arbitration award was recorded, allowing no scope for bona fide defense.
Anticipatory bail dismissed; matter remanded for thorough investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-10036 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 26, 2011
Baljeet Singh
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
… Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Alok Singh, J. (Oral)
This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 59 dated 14.03.2011, under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
Undisputedly, Markfed has stored 82612 bags (weighing 35 Kgs. each) paddy for milling for the year 200910 with firm owned by the petitioner; as per the terms of the agreement, 100% milling was to be done till 31.03.2010 and
2
Crl. Misc. No.M-10036 of 2011
after shelling, rice is to be returned to the Markfed. Despite extension of time, the petitioner failed to return good quality rice out of the paddy given to the petitioner for shelling. On the spot verification, it was found that although 6918 bags of rice (weighing 50 kgs. each) were lying there, which are equal to 14750 bags of paddy (weighing 35 kgs. each), however, taking into account, 14750 bags of paddy and rice returned by the petitioner, 15150 bags of paddy were misappropriated by the petitioner. Petitioner despite of repeated demands/notices, has failed to return the entire paddy given to the petitioner for shelling.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since there is an arbitration clause and petitioner can make the deficiency good as per the award, if passed, therefore, no offence can be said to have been made out under Section 406 IPC.
Undisputedly, entire quantity of paddy after shelling was not returned by the petitioner. Law does not permit any sheller to misappropriate the good quality of rice and to offer minimum price of the rice. Arbitration agreement in every case does not necessarily means that no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. In the present matter, no award has been passed so far. There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner has acted bona fidely while shelling the paddy. In the opinion of this Court,
3
Crl. Misc. No.M-10036 of 2011
matter requires thorough investigation. I am not inclined to grant extra ordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
April 26, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case of misappropriation of paddy during shelling involving an arbitration agreement.
Whether an existing arbitration clause precludes the making out of an offence under Section 406 IPC in this context.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baljeet Singh
State of Punjab
Alok Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
