Criminal Complaint under the section 406 and 420 of IPC and

section 138 of Negotiable Instrument act,1881

WINGS Complainant

versus

Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh..............................................Accused No 1

Mr. Nishant Kumar......................................................Accused No. 2

INTRODUCTION ABOUT THE CASE

This criminal complaint is about a criminal offence committed by both the

accused against the complainant WINGS. WING is a partnership firm having
a warehouse of Amazon products at Sitamarhi, Bihar. Accused No. 2 is
working as a supervisor in the concerned Warehouse and accused No. 1 is
the father of the accused no 2. Accused no 2 is also involved in this criminal
act committed by his son. This criminal complainant is basically about
criminal breach of trust and Cheating and dishonouring cheque given by the
father of the accused no 2.

PARTIES:

Plaintiff, Alcock and others

Defendant, Chief constable of south Yorkshire

SUMMARY OF FACTS:
A legal notice was sent by the firm WINGS through his lawyer Puneet
Siddhartha against both the accused. Basically Accused no. 1 was kept as a
supervisior in the warehouse of the firm situated at Sitamarhi, Bihar. An
amount of Rs. 9, 01,986.26/- had been entrusted to the accused no. 2.
Accused no. 2 used that money for his personal use without any prior
permission from the legitimate authority. The money that was finally
received by the complainant was only Rs. 7, 16, 220.26/-, which was Rs. 1,
85, 466/- less than the money which should have been available. When
accused was asked for rest of the money, he gave assurance to the
complainant that he will return money as soon as possible. For that accused
no. 2 signed an agreement in which he agreed that if he would not return
the said amount, under the prescribed time, legal action may be taken
against him. For repaying money, accused no. 1 had issued a cheque of
Allahabad Bank. Whwn the above mentioned cherque was presented for
enchasement by the complainant to his banker i.e. Union Bank of India
situated at Shri Krishna Nagar Branch, Patna. The cheque was returned
unpaid from the banker due to insufficient fund. This fact was immediately
passed to the accused by numerous telephonic calls but accused have failed
to make the payment towards the complainant and did not accede to the
genuine requests made by the complainant. This shows the mala- fide
intention of the accused. Accused fraudently used the money for his own
purpose and break the breach of trust that entrusted upon him in the form
of money.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 406 of IPC:  Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever

commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.

Section 420 of IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or
any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881:  Dishonour of cheque

for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. —Where any cheque drawn
by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of
any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by
the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the
credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds
the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made
with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence
and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished
with imprisonment for 19 [a term which may be extended to two years], or
with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months
from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity,
whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be,
makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a
notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque,  20 [within thirty days] of the
receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the
cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount
of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of
the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Offences done by both the accused

The act of the accused no 1 to use the money for his personal use is a
criminal act under section 406 as the money was entrusted upon him as a
supervisor. That money was not meant for personal purposes of employee.

The above mentioned act of the accused clearly shows the mala- fide
intention to commit fraud against the complainant.

The cheque which was given by the accused no. 1 to the firm was
dishonored by the bank due to insufficient balance.

Two legal notices were sent by the complainant through his lawyer but
both the accused did not pay any eye and ear to it. Therefore this
case was brought before the the court of judicial magistrate Patna to
take cognizance to the criminal offences committed by both the
accused and punish them accordingly.