C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) 1st respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offences under sections 406 and 418 I. P. C. alleging that he, believing the publicity of the petitioner that tata Cellular Direct (T. C. D.) Card would work out cheaper than S. T. D and that many others benefits would be available to T. C. D. customers, had purchased a T. C. D. Card bearing No. 0000 14-9295/5 and coupon no. 01038-00003-000216 worth Rs. 3,000/- under invoice No. 5 dt. 29-9-2000 for rs. 2,340/- from Ranjit Reddy (shown as l. W. 2, in complaint) and after purchase he found that card does not contain the date of manufacture expiry and instructions for use. After he started using the card he found that call numbers details, unit rate, pulse rate, etc. , are not being displayed and so he made a request to the petitioner to furnish those details and rectify the defect in the card sold to him. But, petitioner did not respond. He also found that there is difference between the call rate advertised and the rate per call actually charged. Thus finding that the petitioner is indulging in unfair trade practice and had cheated him and the public, he gave a police report but police did

Click Here to Read the rest of this document