Crl. Misc.-M. No.14896 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 14896 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.8.2011 Surinder Kumar ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Grewal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal, J. The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are that he was employed by the complainant. He used to supply fabric to the shop keepers in different cities and collect the money from them. The petitioner had also taken a loan of ` 5 lacs from the complainant in the year 2007 and handed over the sale deeds of the properties owned by him and his family members against which the complainant had raised loan from the Bank. The amount which was collected from the customers during the period of 2-1/2 years prior to the registration of FIR was retained by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner had been given a scooter for his duty purpose. After he was removed from service he had stolen that scooter along with certain account books and cheques. However, on filing of the complaint but before registration of the present FIR, the scooter was returned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in fact was a partner in the firm which was carrying on business. It is only for that reason that he had given the title deeds of the properties owned by him and his brother as collateral security for advancing loan or providing working capital limit to the complainant. Had the petitioner been only an Crl. Misc.-M. No.14896 of 2011 -2- employee, he would not have mortgaged or given collateral security of his properties for securing the loan raised by the firm. The story of advancement of ` 5 lacs in the year 2007, is totally false. Even if there are allegations that some amount, which was collected by the petitioner, had been retained by him, the petitioner being a partner the accounts could be settled. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the statements of various customers have been recorded, who stated that the petitioner had been visiting their business premises and collecting money on behalf of the firm. No partnership deed has been produced on the record showing that the petitioner was partner of the firm. However, he submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation but recovery is still to be effected. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that sale deeds of the properties were furnished by the petitioner to the complainant only to secure the loan of ` 5 lacs taken by him. In fact, he or his other family members could not raise loan from the Bank as none of them is income tax payee. He even admitted before the complainant that he has received the money from the customers, a part of which was retained by him. He promised to pay the same. There is no partnership deed and the petitioner was merely an employee. The petitioner had collected amount on behalf of the firm from 63 customers. An amount of ` 26 lacs is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. However, it is stated that there is no receipt for advancing loan of ` 5 lacs to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts as emerged are that the complaint was lodged against the petitioner with the allegations that for a period of 2-1/2 years, the petitioner has been collecting money from the customers and was not depositing the same with the firm either in total or in part. But still there was silence for so long. Though a plea is sought to be raised by the complainant that a sum of ` 5 lacs was advanced to the petitioner on account of which he had given the sale deeds of the properties owned by him and his brother and furnished the same to the bank as collateral security for providing working capital limit as well as term loan to the complainant but there is no receipt of ` 5 lacs given as loan to the petitioner. Learned Crl. Misc.-M. No.14896 of 2011 -3- counsel for the petitioner has produced on record two certificates issued by Union Bank of India, Amritsar showing that in April 2007, he had submitted the title deeds of the properties owned by him as collateral security for the loan granted to the complainant. With regard to the allegations of theft of scooter, it is admitted case that before registration of the FIR, some complaint was filed to the police regarding its theft and the same had already been recovered from the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He has admittedly joined investigation. Interim bail granted to the petitioner on 16.5.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 5.8.2011 Judge Meenu