B.L. Dalmia and ors. Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - sharma, auditor and inspector, respectively of the central bank of india, on 13-j 0-1975 during their checking of raw oils of the company that there was much loss stock of raw oils in the various tanks of the factory as compared to the figures thereof mentioned in the hypothecation stock statement and they would make good the shortage as soon as possible. kapila deliberately failed to follow the conditions subject to which the cash credit was sanctioned to keeran vegetable products ltd. he deliberately failed to take remedial action suggested by shri p. . rawat, auditors, central bank of india on the defects and irregularities in the operation of the aforesaid account by the said company as pointed out by them in inspection reports dated 7-3-1975, 21-8-1975 and 8-10-1975. he failed to remove the irregularities pointed out despite having been directed to do so by the central bank of india's zonal office of chandigarh and head office at bombay. kapila failed to point out the same in the statements in form f-l required to be sent to zonal office under rule 110 of the manual of instructions on advances and as per prevalent procedure excepting for the month of sept. kapila also allowed the debit balance of said kvpl, bhiwani to exceed the drawing power limit allowed by the bank to the said kvpl, bhiwani on 21-3-1975, 24-3-1975 to 28-3-1975,22-9-1975 to 30-9-1975 and 15-10-1975 to 19-10-1975. he also failed to indicate the becoming of the said account out the order on account of this in form m5 required to be submitted in such situations to the zonal office of the said bank excepting for the month of sept. kapila also failed to either himself inspect the stock of kvpl, bhiwani or have it inspected through his second man once a month as required in para 14.42 of the manual of instructions on advances and did not see any inspection report to the zonal office. (18) ram niwas gupta intentionally and deliberately failed to check the stocks of hypothecated goods on the receipt of hypothecation/stock statements which contained highly inflated figures of the stocks of the raw oils hypothecated to the bank in contravention of the provisions of rule 14.17 of manual of instructions regarding advances of the said bank. he also failed to check the stock register of the said kvpl, bhiwani which contained entries about the correct stock position of raw oil as enjoined on him by the aforesaid rule and thus enabled the said kvpl, bhiwani to avail of excessive drawing power over the drawing power which they would have lawfully availed of if correct figures of stock of raw oils had been mentioned in the hypothecation. with the local police as well as with c. |has contended that civil liability of an accused who misappropriates an individual's property on the property of an institution like bank etc. in that case, apart from its being observed that section 630 of the said act imposed no bar to the initiation of proceedings in a criminal court even with reference to acts committed in relation to the affairs of a company if those acts amounted to offences like those punishable under sections 406 and 409, i. the two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly co-extensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. this does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrong does in cases like arson, accidents etc. ' after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i hold that the civil liability of an accused who misappropriates individual's property or property of an institution like bank etc. taking of the truck by the financiers, in that case, could have been done in the exercise of their bona fide right of seizing the truck on the complainant's failure to pay the instalments in time. the question of propriety, if at all, may arise only in cases where civil proceedings or the proceedings of the civil nature envisaged under a given statute terminate in favour of the accused or when the criminal prosecution is initiated after inordinate delay and that too on the failure of the civil proceedings against such a person.a.a. nehra, j.1. petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing f.i.r. no. rc/1/78-ciu(e) lodged at police station spe/cbi/ciu(e)(i), new delhi, and the order dated march 24, 1990 passed by the special judge, ambala, by which charge has been framed.2. the prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:- m/s. keeran vegetable products ltd. (kvpl)was incorporated as a company on 20-7-1990 with the registered office and factory at bhiwani, b.l. dalmia, mahabir prasad dalmia, ryani ram aggarwal, and dali chand jain were its directors. the board of directors vide resolution dated 2-12-1971 decided that central bank, bhiwani be requested to accommodate by loan advances, hypothecation of securities on all or raw material or finished goods both present and future. b.l. dalmia was authorised by the said resolution to negotiate with the bank on behalf of the bank and was also authorised to give a guarantee, etc. with regard to the loan, etc. all the four directors were authorised to sign the documents of the bank in their present capacity and requirement of the company with respect of the loans is shown herein under:-1. hypothecationa) raw materialb) stock in processc) finished goods rs. 30,00,000/-d) inward railways receipts.2. pledge (lock arid key basis) finished goods viz. vanaspati, tin con- tainers soap rs. 20,00,000/-3. documentary bills rs. 10,00,000/-4. clean bills and rs. 5,00,000/- hundies. rs. 65,00,000/-the head office of the central bank of india, bombay vide their telegram dated 27-10-1972 to the zonal manager, chandigarh sanctioned as below:- 1) key loan rs. 20,00,000/-2) open loan rs. 20,00,000/-3) advance against stock in process rs. 10,00,000/-4) inward r.c. rs. 10,00,000/-5) documentary bills rs. 10,00,000/-with the condition that total commitment was not to exceed rs. 50,00,000/- or margin 50% to the company.3. however, the head office of the central bank modified the, sanction vide letter n6. 00/adv/cas/nsz/72/1034 dated 1-11-1972 subject to joint/several guarantee of the directors of the company as under:-1) key loan limit rs. 20,00,000/-2) cash credit open rs. 30,00,000/- loans subject to secu- rity of raw oil, such ground nut oil, til oil, (sic) seed oil, soya- bean in tanks, chemicals, stores of spares and finished goods such as vanas- pati ghee, soap, tins and tin plates, colour etc.sub limits were fixed as under:1) advance against raw material should not exceed rs. 20,00,000/-2) advances against stocks in process should not exceed rs. 10,00,000/-3) advances against rr should not exceed rs. 10,00,000/-4) documentary bill against truck receipt of approved transport co. up to rs. 10,00,000/- subject to rs. 5,00,000/- against trans- port company.4. m/s. keeran vegetable products ltd. bhiwani submitted the following security documents all dated 4-11-1972 to the central bank of india, bhiwani, bearing the signatures of all the four directors:-1. demand promissory note for rs. 50,00,000/-2. letter of waiver3. letter of continuity j4. letter of hypothecation to secure demand cash credit against goods.5. letter of hypothecation to secure advance against rr receipt.6 letter of pledge7. letter of interest8. letter of no encumbrance9. letter of agreement from parties for discounting bills.5. b. l. dalmia and madan lal bhalotia were directors, r.c. jha was accountant and s.r. dalmia was general manager during the period between october, 1974 to december, 1975 and they were parties to criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and others to cheat the central bank of india by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the said bank to advance money to m/s. keeran vegetable products ltd., bhiwani under the aforesaid cash credit account with, total limit of rs. 50,000/- on the basis of hypothecation stock statements and pledge forms/ storage orders containing highly inflated figures of raw oils, stock in process and false certificates about the correctness of the figures of quantity of raw oils and stock in process mentioned in said hypothecation stock statements and pledge forms/storage orders in excess of the money to which the said kvpl, bhiwani were not lawfully entitled if correct figures of stocks had been maintained in the said hypothecation stock statements and pledge forms/ storage orders and certificates and thereby procured undue pecuniary benefits for kvpl, bhiwani by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing the official position of the said m.k. kapila as branch manager of central bank of india, bhiwani and the official position of ram niwas gupta aforesaid as assistant cashier-cum-godown keeper of central bank of india, bhiwani.6. in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the accused are alleged to have committed the following acts of omission and commission:-(1) b.l. dalmia, m.l. bhalotia, r.c. jha, s.r. dalmia and m.k. kapila used to hold meetings in the office of keeran vegetable products ltd., bhiwani in which false and highly inflated figures of raw oils ands stocks in process to be incorporated in the hypothecation stock statements and plede forms/ storage orders to be submitted to the central bank of india, bhiwani in proportion to the money which they wanted to draw against their cash credit account were discussed and finalised.(2) b.l. dalmia admitted before shri i.p, chopra and shri h.r. sharma, auditor and inspector, respectively of the central bank of india, on 13-j 0-1975 during their checking of raw oils of the company that there was much loss stock of raw oils in the various tanks of the factory as compared to the figures thereof mentioned in the hypothecation stock statement and they would make good the shortage as soon as possible. he also requested the inspecting staff not to spread the news about the shortage and not spoil their reputation.(3) b.l. dalmia used to take active interest in the management of the company and was fully aware of the submission of hypothecation stock statement, pledge forms/storage orders containing highly inflated figures of stock of raw oils etc. to the central bank of india, bhiwani for obtaining higher drawing powers than the company was lawfully entitled to get if correct figures of stocks had been mentioned in the aforesaid documents.(4) m.l. balotia submitted the following hypothecation stock statements containing highly inflated figures of stock of raw oils and stocks in process etc. compared to the stocks actually held by the company and thereby dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the central bank of india, bhiwani by drawing amounts noted against each in excess of the amounts which could be lawfully drawn if the correct stocks had been mentioned in these hypothecation stock statements:-sr. date of hypothe- excessno. cation stock amount drawnstatement--------------------------------------------------------------1. 3-3-1975 (hypo- rs. 27,75,585.33 thecation anddelivery)2. 7-4-1975 rs. 29,94,081.463. 14-4-1975 rs. 25,13,794.744. 21-4-1975 rs. 26,37,318.915. 28-4-1975 rs. 28,93,840.836. 5-5-1975 rs. 25,47,334.227. 15-5-1975 rs. 22,34,202.098. 26-5-1975 rs. 17,77,124.809. 16-6-1975/21-6-1975 rs. 26,48,214.29 10. 30-6-1975/15-5-1975 rs. 23,53,943.65 11. 9-8-1975 rs. 32,109.8112. 10-7-1975/23-7-1975 rs. 27,54,753.8113. 27-8-1975/ 5-9-1975 rs. 35,14,085.5514. 8-10-1975 rs. 36,50,354.1715. 24-10-1975 rs. 24,06,107.0716. 11-11-1975 rs. 25,48,652.44 17. 17-11-1975/20-11-1975 rs. 23,07,507.54(5) m.l. balotia submitted the following pledge forms storage orders containing highly inflated figures of stock of raw oils as compared to the stocks actually held by the company and thereby dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the central bank of india, by drawing amounts noted against each in excess of the amounts which could be lawfully drawn if the correct stocks had been mentioned in these pledge forms/storage orders:-sr. date of pledge excessno. forms/storage amount drawnorders--------------------------------------------------------------1. 12-2-1975 rs. 27,15,058.432. 18-2-1975 rs. 28,89,658.413. 22-2-1975 rs. 31,42,303.084. 23-4-1975 rs. 29,03,935.275. 26-4-1975 rs. 29,82,899.83(6) m.l. balotia operated upon the account of keeran vegetable products ltd. bhiwani with the central bank of india, bhiwani, where from excess amounts were dishonestly and fraudulently drawn in the manner and to the extent mentioned above.(7) r.c. jha submitted the following hypothecation stock statements containing highly inflated figures of stock of raw oil, stock in process etc. as compared to the stock actually held by the company and thereby dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the central bank of india, bhiwani by drawing amounts noted against each in excess of the-amounts which could be lawfully drawn if correct stocks had been mentioned in these hypothecation statement:-sr. date of hypothe- excessno. cation stock amount drawnstatement--------------------------------------------------------------1. 16-10-1974 rs. 08,62,208.962. 16-12-1974 rs. 22,61,617.253. 31-12-1974 rs. 20,51,039.934. 16-1-1975 rs. 16,63,179.275. 31-1-1975 rs. 16,14,958.226. 19-3-1975 (hypo- rs. 27,74,111.41 thecation anddelivery)7. 24-3-1975 rs. 28,99,674.46(8) r.c. jha submitted the following pledge forms/storage orders containing highly inflated figures of stocks of raw oil compared to the stock actually held by the company and thereby dishonestly and fradulently cheated the central bank of india by drawing amounts noted against each in excess of the amounts which could be lawfully drawn if the correct stocks had been mentioned in the pledge forms/ storage orders:-sr. date of pledge form/ excess amount no. storage order drawn--------------------------------------------------------------1. 29-10-1974 rs. 11,71,031.732. 31-10-1974 rs. 14,24,334.613. 2-11-1974 rs. 16,89,185.774. 26-11-1974 rs. 14,97,415.905. 30-11-1974 rs. 14,87,513.936. 3-12-1974 rs. 15,70,768.337. 5-12-1974 rs. 19,44,855.738. 14-12-1974 rs. 25,07,959.709. 4-2-1975 rs. 22,34,852.5610. 6-2-1975 rs. 24,45,454.7311. 7-2-1975 rs. 25,11,563.8312. 10-2-1975 rs. 24,25,292.1513. 11-2-1975 rs. 25,09,365.30(9) s. r. dalmia intentionally and deliberately dictated to shri b. n. misra, excise clerk of the company, highly inflated figures of stock of raw oil and stock in process in hypothecation stock statement dated 16-10-1974, 2-12-1974, 16-12-1974, 31-1-1975, 19-3-1975 and 24-3-1975 with the intention of dishonestly and fraudulently cheating the central bank of india, bhiwani and thereby caused them to advance money to keeran vegetable products ltd. bhiwani for in excess of the amount which the said company could lawfully draw if correct figures stocks had been mentioned in these hypothecation stock statements.(10) m.k. kapila deliberately failed to follow the conditions subject to which the cash credit was sanctioned to keeran vegetable products ltd., bhiwani in the aforesaid letter dated 1-11-1972 sanctioning the loan to the said company with the intention of causing wrongful gain to kvpl, bhiwani and deliberate wrongful loss to the central bank of india, bhiwani. he was directed to allow 50% margin while calculating the drawing power of kvpl, bhiwani but he allowed 30% to them. he also allowed drawing power much in excess of rs. 10,00,000/- as against the sanction of only rs. 10,00,900/- of advance against stock in process.(11) m.k. kapila accepted excessive rate per metric ton of imported oil which was for in excess of the control rate of the same in the matter of allowing drawing power to the said company. he deliberately failed to take remedial action suggested by shri p. n. upadhya, inspector of godown, shri h.r. sharma and shri p.c.. rawat, auditors, central bank of india on the defects and irregularities in the operation of the aforesaid account by the said company as pointed out by them in inspection reports dated 7-3-1975, 21-8-1975 and 8-10-1975. he failed to remove the irregularities pointed out despite having been directed to do so by the central bank of india's zonal office of chandigarh and head office at bombay.(12) m.k. kapila deliberately and with the intention to procure unlawful gain to said kvpl, bhiwani allowed the debt balance of the said company to exceed the sanction limit of rs. 50,00,000/- on 26/27-12-1974, 2-1-1975, 31-5-1975, 1-8-1975 to 3-8-1975, 1-9-1975 and 2-9-1975 to 7-9-1975. on account of the sanctioned limit of rs. 20,00,000/- having been exceeded on the aforesaid dates the account of m/ s. kvpl, bhiwani became out of order. m.k. kapila failed to point out the same in the statements in form f-l required to be sent to zonal office under rule 110 of the manual of instructions on advances and as per prevalent procedure excepting for the month of sept. 1975.(13) m.k. kapila also allowed the debit balance of said kvpl, bhiwani to exceed the drawing power limit allowed by the bank to the said kvpl, bhiwani on 21-3-1975, 24-3-1975 to 28-3-1975,22-9-1975 to 30-9-1975 and 15-10-1975 to 19-10-1975. he also failed to indicate the becoming of the said account out the order on account of this in form m5 required to be submitted in such situations to the zonal office of the said bank excepting for the month of sept. 1975 in violating of rule 110 of the manual of instructions of advances and as per the prevalent procedure.(14) m.k. kapila also failed to either himself inspect the stock of kvpl, bhiwani or have it inspected through his second man once a month as required in para 14.42 of the manual of instructions on advances and did not see any inspection report to the zonal office.(15) m. k. kapila falsified the stock registers of the bank by entering the pledge of 50 m.ts of cotton seed oil as on 31-10-1974 because on that date m/s kvpl, bhiwani were infact in possession of only 36.965 mts of cotton seed oil out of which 28 mts of this oil was already under hypothecation to the said bank.(16) again m.k. kapila made a false entry about the pledge of 30 mts of cotton seed oil in the stock register of the bank on 2-11-1974. on this day kvpl, bhiwani were actually in possession of 36-965 mts out of which 28 mt of this oil was already under hypothecation to the said bank and m.k. kapila had already7 made a false entry regarding the pledge of 50mt of this oil on 31-10-1974 m.k. kapila had acted in place of ram niwas gupta, assistant cashier-cum-godown keeper who was on leave on both these occasions, m.k. kapila did not furnish the requisite certificate regarding correctly taking charge of the stock of cotton seed as entered by him in the stock register of the bank regarding the pledge of the same. m.k. kapila also made false entries while calculating the drawing powers of kvpl, bhiwani in the drawing power register on the aforesaid dates viz. 31-10-1974 and 2-11-1974.(17) ram niwas gupta, the then assistant cashier-cum-godown keeper of central bank of india, bhiwani gave false certificates about taking charge of the raw oils pledged by said kvpl, bhiwani and falsified records to show that the raw oils pledge were for in excess of the raw oils actually in stock with the said kvpl, bhiwani. he gave false certificates about taking charge of the pledged raw oils by recording that the quantities of the raw oils pledged and the rate applied were in order whereas the quantities of raw oils actually pledged were far less than those shown in the record of the bank and thus dishonestly enabled the said kvpl, bhiwani to avail of highly inflated/excessive drawing power than they would have been otherwise lawfully entitled to avail of it correct figures of raw oils pledged had been incorporated. excepting on 31-10-1974 and 2-11-1974 on which dates he was on leave, ram niwas gupta aforesaid, made false entries about the pledge of raw oils in the relevant register of the bank and bank's drawing power book to enable the said kvpl, bhiwani to draw more money under the aforesaid account from the central bank of india, bhiwani than the said company would have been lawfully entitled to draw if he had correctly taken charge of the pledged goods and made correct entries in the aforesaid bank's stock register and drawing power book.(18) ram niwas gupta intentionally and deliberately failed to check the stocks of hypothecated goods on the receipt of hypothecation/stock statements which contained highly inflated figures of the stocks of the raw oils hypothecated to the bank in contravention of the provisions of rule 14.17 of manual of instructions regarding advances of the said bank. he also failed to check the stock register of the said kvpl, bhiwani which contained entries about the correct stock position of raw oil as enjoined on him by the aforesaid rule and thus enabled the said kvpl, bhiwani to avail of excessive drawing power over the drawing power which they would have lawfully availed of if correct figures of stock of raw oils had been mentioned in the hypothecation.(19) in para 2 of the petition, petitioners have stated that prior to coming into being the abovementioned f.i.r. the case vide f.i.r. no. dd 30 dated 27-10-1975 under section 406/420 was registered in police station, saddar, bhiwani containing the same allegations which were the subject-matter in the f.i.r. stated above. it is further mentioned that the case was thoroughly investigated by the local police and since no evidence was found worth the name against the petitioners, the police authorities submitted the challan containing the report that since there was no evidence against the petitioners, so no action can be taken. petitioners have further submitted in their petition that before lodging f.i.r. central bank of india filed a suit no. 24 of 1978 on 18-1-1978 for recovery of rs. 4864209.77 and in that suit petitioners were impleaded as defendants. it is further mentioned in the petition that the petitioners contested this suit and the civil suit was compromised and the civil court passed judgment and decree on 13-6-1979. it has been further submitted in the petition that the dispute is of a civil nature and the proceedings in persuance of the f.i.r. lodged by the c.b.i. is an abuse of the process of the court. notice of this petition was given and the reply has been filed on behalf of c.b.i. in para 2 of the reply, it has been stated that it is correct that the local police of police station, bhiwani has registered f.i.r. no. 426 dated 27-10-1975 under sections 406/420, i.p.c, on the basis of a complaint lodged by shri kapila and the petitioners have wrongly referred the f.i.r. no. dd-30 dated 27-10-1975. it is also admitted in the reply that the local police has filed the case as untraced. it has been further stated that the local police while investigating the case did not collect any sample from the tank which allegedly contained oil mixed with water nor did they take any records of m/s. keeran vegetable products ltd., bhiwani for scrutiny. it is further mentioned in the reply that on completion of the investigation, the bhiwani police declared the case as that of civil nature, which was accepted by the chief judicial magistrate, bhiwani on 18-2-1977. it is further mentioned in the reply that the local police had not gone through the important aspect as to how m/s. keeran vegetable products limited obtained loan from the bank against hypothecation and pledge of raw materials i.e. whether they obtained the loans by misrepresentation through hypothecation stock statements and pledge forms containing highly inflated figures of raw oils or otherwise. it is further mentioned in the reply that this aspect has thoroughly been looked into by the cbi during that course of investigation and it has been found that m/s. keeran vegetable products limited, bhiwani were able to avail excess drawing power and drew more money by declaring highly inflated figures of raw oils and on certain occasions non-existent raw oils in their hypothecation stock statements and pledge forms submitted to the central bank of india in their cash credit accounts. c.b.i, has also filed a copy of the charge-sheet as annexure r-l along with their reply.(21) in paras 3 and 4 of the reply, it has been stated that it is true that the allegations contained in the f.i.r. with the local police as well as with c.b.i, are more or less the same. a copy of the f.i.r. lodged by the c.b.i, has been attached with the reply, as annexure r-2. in reply to paras 5,6 and 7 it has been stated that the bank might have filed the civil suit for the recovery of the losses incurred by bank due to petitioners and the same had been settled at bhiwani, hence, the contents are not denied.7. mr. d. s. bali, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the matter between the parties was purely of a civil nature culminating into a decree passed after lodging the f.i.r. and the matter stood compromised between the parties, therefore, f.i.r. and the subsequent proceedings are an abuse of process of the court. in support of his arguments, he has relied upon trilok singh v. satya deo tripathi, : 1980crilj822 .8. mr. r. k. handa, learned counsel for the c.b.i. |has contended that civil liability of an accused who misappropriates an individual's property on the property of an institution like bank etc. is based upon the right of such individual or institution to be reimbursed by; such person to the extent of the misappropriated amount while his criminal liability springs from the fact that the society at large is interested in seeing that the individuals constituting the society do not deviate from the right conduct and thus law envisages imposition of punishment, physical or otherwise, to deter such persons and others from doing so in future. it is for this reason that the state, which represents the society, takes upon itself the role of a prosecutor. even when an individual upon whom the crime had been committed refrains from prosecuting the accused and even when he petitions that the accused should not be prosecuted!, the state is not only not debarred from prosecuting the accused but it is in law duty-bound to initiate the criminal proceedings and punish the accused for the crime.9. illustrative of the above approach is the decision of the madras high court reported as m. vaidyanathan v. the sub-divisional magistrate, erode, : air1957mad65 . in that case, police investigation and criminal prosecution of officers of the government was sought to be stopped in its track on the plea that section 630 of the companies act, 1956 barred the criminal prosecution. in that case, apart from its being observed that section 630 of the said act imposed no bar to the initiation of proceedings in a criminal court even with reference to acts committed in relation to the affairs of a company if those acts amounted to offences like those punishable under sections 406 and 409, i.p.c. the learned judge further observed that in prosecution of a persons suspected of having committed such offences it was the state representing the society as a whole that was interested, while the benefits conferred by section 630 of the said act were confined to the company and to its representative specified by section 630 itself. it has been held by the supreme court in pratibha rani v. suraj kumar, 1985 (1) rcr 539 : (1985 cri lj 817) as under at page 824; of cri lj :-'the observations of the high court at other places regarding the inapplicability of section 406 do not appeal to us and are in fact not in consonance with the spirit and trend of the criminal law. there are a large number of a cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. the two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly co-extensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. the object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person property or the state for which the accused on proof of the offence is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. this does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrong does in cases like arson, accidents etc. it is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. the two types of actions are quite different in contents, scope and import.'after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i hold that the civil liability of an accused who misappropriates individual's property or property of an institution like bank etc. is based upon the right of such individual or institution to be reimbursed by such person to the extent of the misappropriated amount while his criminal liability springs from the fact that the society at large is interested in seeing that the individuals constituting the society do not deviate from the right conduct and thus law envisages imposition of punishment, physical or otherwise, to deter such persons and others from doing so in future. it is for this reason that the state, which represents the society, takes upon itself the role of a prosecutor. even when an individual upon whom the crime had been committed refrains from prosecuting the 'accused and even when he petitions that the accused should not be prosecuted, the state is not only not debarred from prosecuting the accused but it is in law duty-bound to initiate the criminal proceedings and punish the accused for the crime. in trilok singh's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners a truck was purchased under a hire-purchase agreement; the financiers seized this truck for non-payment of instalments; the complainant alleged that only a blank form had been got signed by him and, on the default of the third instalment, the truck had been forcibly seized and removed by the financiers. the supreme court held that the proceedings against the financiers were an abuse of the process of the court as the dispute raised was purely of a civil nature. it was further held that obtaining signatures of a person on a blank-sheet of paper was not by itself an offence and that it becomes an offence only when the paper is fabricated into a document of a kind which attracts the relevant provisions of the penal code, making it an offence, or when such a document is used as a genuine document. taking of the truck by the financiers, in that case, could have been done in the exercise of their bona fide right of seizing the truck on the complainant's failure to pay the instalments in time. it was thus a bona fide civil dispute between the parties. therefore, trilok singh's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.10. now, coming to the question whether a person who, besides incurring civil liability, had incurred criminal liability by certain act of his should be prosecuted when he had been proceeded against on the civil side and a decree has been passed against him, it may be observed that no impropriety whatsoever is involved either in launching prosecution against such a person for the criminal act or continuing with such proceedings, if already initiated to their logical end. the question of propriety, if at all, may arise only in cases where civil proceedings or the proceedings of the civil nature envisaged under a given statute terminate in favour of the accused or when the criminal prosecution is initiated after inordinate delay and that too on the failure of the civil proceedings against such a person. it is only when in such very special circumstances it appears to the court that the continuance of the prosecution of the accused would amount to an abuse of the process of the criminal court that this court may appropriate intervene; but here too, it could not be said that the criminal courts had no jurisdiction to try an accused or that the criminal prosecution was illegal.11. in view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.12. firstly, this case was registered on 27-10-1975, vide fir no. 426 under sections 406 and 420, indian penal code, with the local i police. the local police filed the case as untracted. then, this case was entrusted to the ' cbi and, on the basis of the investigation ' conducted by the cbi, this case was registered in 1978. charge was framed against the petitioners by the special judge, ambala, on 24-3-1990. the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, which was admitted on 12-11-1990 and since 1990, this petition remained pending in this court and the trial of | the petitioners was delayed due to the admission of this petition. therefore, the petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear before the special judge, ambala, on 16-3-1994. the trial court is directed to complete the trial within one year from the receipt of this order. the additional registrar of this court is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court by 22-2-1994 through a special messenger. the trial court is further directed to send a report after every two months to this court about the progress of the trial in the case.