The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 250(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the determination of whether there was a reasonable ground for making the accusations against the accused.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by C. W. 1 Bathla, against the order dated August 29, 1987, passed by the special Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, In C. C. No. 1 of 1987 issuing a notice to him under section 250 (1) Cr. P. C. to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused.

( 2 ) THE parties have been referred to with reference to their position before the Special Judge.

( 3 ) A-1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and has got its Head Office at Calcutta and Branch Offices at Bangalore, Nagpur, New Delhi and Hyderabad. A 1 has been carrying on the business of manufacturing aluminium pipes and sprinkler equipment. It also deals in stocking, supplying, distributing and selling Thin Walled Mild Steel Galvanised Pipes manufactured by A-8 at its factory at Secunderabad. A-8 is also a Company registered under the companies Act and promoted by A-1 Company. It is manufacturing Galvanised Pipes for sprinkler irrigation equipment under Industrial Licence No. 225 (82) dated 29-11-1982 issued by the Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry, New Delhi, at their factory at pattancheru, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, during 1985-86, A-1 to A-10 entered into a criminal conspiracy at Bangalore, Calcutta and Secunderabad to contravene the terms of the above mentioned licence dated 29-11-1982 by supplying Galvanised Pipes for conveying drinking water. They agreed to supply the said pipes to A-5 at the instance of A-1 represented by A-2 to A-4, for the purpose of using the said pipes for conveying drinking water. A-5 agreed to receive the said pipes for the purpose of sale to the prospective customers. A-6 and A-7 agreed to canvass the sale of aforesaid pipes to the prospective customers knowing that the pipes are being laid for conveying drinking water. A-7 and A-8 agreed to prepare project report also. A-2 to A-4, A-9 and A-10 got printed, published and distributed leaf lets canvassing for the sale of Galvanised Pipes for conveying drinking water among other uses, manufactured by A-8 on behalf of A-1. Thus, all the accused conspired to commit offences punishable under Section 7 (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with clause 3 of Mild Steel Tubes (excluding Seamless Tubes and Tubes according to api Specifications (Quality Control) Order, 1978 and Section 24 (1) (iv) of the Industrial development Regulation Act, 1951 read with Rules 15 (2) and 16 of the Registration and licensing of Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952 read with Section 120b. P. C. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, A-2, A-4, A-9 and A-10 being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of A-8 Company contravened the Industrial Licence (. L) No. 225 (82) by supplying/distributing/selling the aforesaid Galvanised Pipes for conveying drinking water instead of using the pipes for sprinkler irrigation equipment. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, A-5 secured the pipes manufactured by A-8 through A-1 and sold them knowingly that the Galvanised Pipes were not within the prescribed standards of clause 3 of the Order inasmuch as the Galvanised Pipes so supplied by A-1 and A-8 companies for the purpose of sale to A-4 were below the prescribed standards mentioned in table I to IS-1239 (Part I), 1979 Specification for Mild Steel Tubes, Tublers and Wrought Steel fittings. Further A-2 to A-4 representing A-1 and A-8 in collusion with A-5 to A-7 published leaflets canvassing and promoting the use of the aforesaid non-standard pipes for use in conveying drinking water. Further, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, A-6 and A-7 prepared during July 1985 a project report for drawing water from Honnammanahalla through Hydrams and supply of the same to Chickmagalur town for drinking purposes through Galvanised Pipes.

( 5 ) THE present revision petitioner C. W. 1 filed a private complaint in the Court of the Special judge enumerating all the