Manager, Vadilal Company along with Pranab Roy, the Sales Manager of the Company had told him (Suman Ganguly) that Bharat Tirtha Darshan, the firm of the petitioners, had no authority to give franchise of Vadilal Company; that when he showed them his agreement paper with Bharat Tirtha Darshan, they told him that there was no business agreement between the Vadilal Company and Bharat Tirtha Darshan and that Bharat Tirtha Darshan had not deposited any amount with Vadilal Company. It may be noted that the said Suman Ganguly was projected to be another victim of the fraud allegedly played by the petitioners. It is, however, interesting to notice that neither the named Deputy General Manager of Vadilal Company nor the named Sales Manager of the said company was examined or cited as witnesses for the prosecution. In the absence of evidence from these two officials of the Vadilal Company, there is no prima facie evidence at this stage to show that the petitioners did have the intention to deceive the respondent No. 1 at the time when the promises were made. No other issue survives for consideration. In my opinion, the trial court erred in framing the charge against the petitioners U/s 420/34 IPC; the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
