S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS are before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 2. 3. 2006 passed by a learned Single of the High court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 26498 of 2005 dismissing their applications for quashing the summons issued to them in crime No. 32 of 2005 on a complaint filed by one of the partners of M/s. Aarbee Apparels Impex, Tiruppur under Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 of the indian Penal Code (for short, "ipc" ).

( 3 ) M/s. T. M. S. Fashion Private Limited, Chennai (for short, "the company") is a certifying agent. Appellant No. 1 is the Assistant General manager of the company engaged in export of garments. Appellant No. 2 is the Accounts Manager, Appellant No. 3 is the Shipping Manager, Appellant no. 4 is one of its Directors and Appellant No. 5 is a Consultant for the company. Appellant No. 6 is an employee of Bax Global Private Ltd. who has nothing to do with the appellant company.

( 4 ) IN the complaint petition, the complainant alleged that the appellant nos. 1 to 4 had approached the Aarbee Apparels Impex which is engaged in the manufacture of Hosiery Garments in the month of December 2004 for supply of men's cardigan and sweat shirts for the total value of 76,197. 60 euros to Ultimate Buyers at Germany. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said contract entered into by and between the parties, export of the said garments were made by Respondent No. 2. The Company is said to have issued various inspection certificates in the following terms :

"this is to certify that the goods of above Order have been inspected prior to shipment and found in order and good conditions. This certificate shall be entirely without prejudice and shall not absolve the seller from liability in respect of any actions, claims, demand of proceedings subsequently taken or made by TMS (Fashion)Pvt. Ltd. and/or their customer. "

The supplier company Aarbee apparel, however, stood guarantor for 'skip stitches after checking'.

( 5 ) THE buyer company by an email refused to accept the shipment on the premise that on a random checking too many defects disqualifying the goods to be shipped were found and, thus, the goods being sub-standard, were not acceptable. They asked the company to pick up the goods from their warehouse. Respondent No. 2, however, did not make any attempt to re-export the said goods from Germany to India. On or about 18. 3. 2005, it filed a complaint petition with the superintendent of Police, Coimbatore to help it to recover dues from the appellant company. Appellant company, thereafter sent a legal notice to Respondent No. 2 on or about 25. 3. 2005, inter alia, stating :

"our clients state that you were clearly informed that quality control checks would be very stringent and unless quality norms are met, the buyer would not accept the consignment leading to large losses all around. You accepted the terms and promise to deliver the finished goods in time. Accordingly, three purchase orders were placed on you by TMS, details as follows :

SPO No.

Style No.

Rate

PC

1.

051949

P30837

Euro. 6. 80 (C&f)

2.

7051961

P30857

Euro. 9. 45 (C&f)

3.

7051964

P30858

Euro10. 26 (C&f)

The delivery date was stipulated as 15. 01. 2005, payment on L/c basis at sight. The letter of credit was accordingly established by Manhattan on you expiring on 25. 01. 2005 for the sum of 84. 486. 00 euro you have accepted the purchase order and claimed to have commenced manufacture. Our clients state that within a few days, it was found that your factory was having only around 15 machines and worse, the factory itself as not running for a few months and you had given the entire order on job work basis to various smaller units in Tirupur. At that stage, our client had committed the delivery schedule to the buyer in germany and also accepted heavy penalties in case of delayed delivery of short supply. Thus, there was no choice for our clients to cancel the order with you and