THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7440 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.924 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jaggaiahpeta, filed for the offences under Sections 420 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as a sole accused. The main allegations made against the petitioner are as under. “L.W.1 is the Executive Director of Paripurna Dairy Products (P) Ltd., and looking after the affairs of the said Company. It registered office is situated at D.No.5-53, Seetharamapuram, Jaggaiahpeta and the Company is established at Akkapamula (V), Nalgonda District. The operation of the Company is being maintained from its registered office. In the year 1999, the accused approached L.W.1 for the employment after his retirement from A.P. Dairy Development Corporation. The accused represented L.W.1 that he will work efficiently and increase the product of the company and financial status. L.W.1 believed the version of the accused and appointed him as General Manager in February, 1999. During his tenure as General Manager is requested L.W.1 for Investment of some amount for the smooth running of the Company. As such L.W.1 arranged the cash of Rs.9,09,450/- and handed over the same to the accused. But the accused instead of getting the procurement of products, he was misappropriated the above said amount and shown the said amount as his own cash in the books of accounts as if he was invested in the company. During the course of audit the said fact has come to light and as per the investigative audit report the said fact was brought to the notice of L.W.1. According to investigative audit report the accused also siphoned funds by selling 5000 kgs skimmed milk powder on 31.07.2000 and 01.03.2000 worth about 3.5 lakhs which was purchased by the company from its customers is meant for production of milk but not for sale.” Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points for consideration. (1) In these type of cases, it is the prime duty of the Investigating Officer to recover the documents to establish the crime; (2) If the investigation is defective in nature, the entire case of prosecution should be thrown out; and (3) The present investigation cannot be called as a complete investigation. This Court perused the complaint, charge sheet and also the other documents filed by the petitioner herein. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court at the time of investigation to quash the same and the said application was dismissed twice taking into consideration the fact that prima facie case exists against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, now charge sheet is filed. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is true that in these type of cases, the entire case of the prosecution would lie only on the documents, on a perusal of the records, it is evident that the Investigating Officer has collected the following documents. (1) Audit Report; (2) Ledger Account copy of Ram Brother Transports; and (3) Ledger Account copy of Paripurna Dairy Products (P) Ltd. Further, the investigation cannot be called defective in view of the fact that the Investigating Officer examined seven witnesses apart from the documents seized during the course of investigation. Out of the said witnesses, two witnesses who are mainly relied on by the prosecution are L.Ws.4 and 5. The said witnesses are shown by the prosecution to speak about diverting the funds from Ram Brothers Transport to Paripurna Dairy Products (P) Ltd., and also to speak about the ledger accounts which were given by L.W.1 and deposit in the name of the petitioner-accused as per his direction. Hence, this Court is of the view that this is not an apt stage to interfere with the trial based on the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency. The disputed facts raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be raised at the time of trial and this Court cannot decide the same by conducting enquiry that too by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ (RAJA ELANGO, J) 24th August 2011 RRB