SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Kar) 580

High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA
Behram Bomanji Dubash & Others
Versus
The State of Karnataka
Crl.P.No. 1891 of 2006 C/W Crl.P.No.4069 of 2006, Crl.P.No.3892 of 2007 & Crl.P. 3618 of 2007 In Crl.P.No.1891 of 2006
Decided On : 25-05-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Amit Desai & B.N. Jayadeva, Advocates.
For the Respondent: R1, B. Balakrishna, HCGP.

Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 190: [K.N. Keshavanarayana,J] "Taking cognizance" of offence - Except stating that he has perused the records, the order of Magistrate not reflecting as to whether Magistrate was satisfied about existence of prima facie case - Offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w 34, IPC were mentioned incharge-sheet - Order of Magistrate did not specifically indicate as to in respect of which offence he has taken cognizance as he had mentioned that he has taken cognizance of the offence and not the offences - Held, There is no application of judicious mind. Application of judicious mind, is condition precedent.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 418 & 420: [K.N.Keshavanarayana,J] Cheating - Offence of cheating alleged against company - Held, No application of principle of vicarious liability. There is no special provision in India Penal Code making the functionaries of such company vicariously liable for any of the offences committed by the company. Absence of any prima facie material to indicate individual over acts said to have been committed by functionaries of company. Cognizance of the alleged offences against them cannot be taken. Order taking cognizance of offence alleged and order directing issue of summons to functionaries of company is perverse and illegal.

       CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 482: [ K.N. Keshavanarayana, J] Quashing of Criminal Proceedings relating to commercial dispute - Interference by High Court - Held, Power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse to process of any Court and to secure ends of Justice. In respect of Indian Penal Code offences except to the extent provided therein, there is no application of principles of vicarious liability. In respect of offences committed by a company, there is no special provision in Indian Penal Code making the functionaries of such company vicariously liable for any of the offences committed by the company. In the absence of any prima facie material to indicate the individual overt acts said to have been committed by the petitioners, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners as they cannot be saddled with the criminal liability by application of principles of vicarious liability. - Further Held, Even if entire material produced along with the charge sheet are accepted at their face value and in its entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 against the petitioners and there has been an attempt by Scarlet to convert commercial dispute into a criminal case only with a view to coerce Oriental to succumb to their pressure tactics by the Scarlet. On Facts, Held, it is manifestly clear that the material on record do not prima facie indicate that Oriental had at any time by making false representation induced Scarlet to enter into transaction and to deliver money. There is absolutely no material on record to indicate that Oriental had at any time by making false representation. Therefore, there are no prima facie materials to constitute the offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC. The learned Magistrate without applying his judicious mind to these materials which are produced along with the charge sheet and without forming any opinion about the existence of a prima facie case proceeded to take cognizance of the offence alleged and has issued summons to the petitioners. Hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Judgment :-

C.M.M. Bangalore, have sought for quashing the said criminal proceedings launched against them. As these petitions relate to one and the same criminal proceedings in C.C.No.20672/2003 and since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, all these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners 1 to 5 in Criminal Petition No.1891/2006 have been arraigned as accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 respectively, petitioner in Crl.P.No.4069/06 has been arraigned as accused No.8, petitioner in Crl.P.No.3892/07 has been arraigned as accused No.7, while the petitioner in Crl.P.3618/07 has been arraigned as accused No.3 in the charge sheet filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, F & M Squad, CCB, N.T. Pet, Bangalore alleging offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w 34 IPC.

3. M/s. Scarlet Flowers and Agritech Ltd. (for short ‘Scarlet’), a public limited company having its registered office at No.6-1-71, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad, A.P. and Corporate Office at No.284, II Main, J.P.Nagar III Phase, Bangalore was the complainant before the Police and it has been arraigned as respondent No.2 to these petitions. The petitioners herein are stated to be the Chairman, Directors and officials of M/s. Oriental Floratech India Ltd. (for short ‘Oriental), a public limited company having its registered office at II floor, Darabshaw house, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.

4. Facts leading to the presentation of these petitions are as under: Oriental was engaged in floriculture consultancy, plant propagation activities, and supply of planting materials to various floricultural companies ad grower’s. The activity of the Scarlet was floriculture namely growing and export of fresh cut roses. Some time during the year 1994, Scarlet conceived a project for growing the roses and to export the same to overseas countries. According to Scarlet in a seminar on floricultural industry held during the month of July-August 1994 in Bangalore City, accused No.1 (R.R.Bhinge) being the Director of Oriental and other staff members met Smt.G. Avanija Reddy, the Managing Director and G. Rajashekar Reddy, Director (CWs. 1 and 2) of Scarlet and represented to them that Oriental is the authorized representative/agent for major rose breeders of the world namely (1) De Ruiters New Roses International B.V.(2) Terra Nigra b.v. and (3) W.Qordes Sohne and that Oriental is having marketing expertise and practical experience in various aspects of rose production in Indian climatic conditions. It is thereafter CWs. 1 and 2 stated to have formed the company ‘Scarlet: and after negotiations a Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘MOU’) dated 21.12.1994 was entered into between Oriental and Scarlet for consultancy assistance for the implementation of the project of floriculture by Scarlet. Under the said MOU among other things it was agreed that Oriental should provide all assistance and co-operation in procuring the planting material for the purpose of the project either by procuring the same from its own propagation facilities or sourcing the same from elsewhere. The duration of the said consultancy agreement was from the date of the execution of the agreement and until the first export of cut flowers by Scarlet or 31.3.1996, whichever is earlier. However, the agreement provided for extension of the period by one calendar year from the first export date on mutually agreed terms. For the consultancy services to be provided by Oriental, Scarlet was required to pay one time fee of Rs.20 Lakhs at different stages as mentioned in the agreement. Thereafter, Oriental sent report on variety port folio to Scarlet along with its letter dated 29.12.1994 for floricultural project of Scarlet in 4 hectare area. According to Oriental, for 4 hectare project Scarlet required 2,80,000 plants and the price of each plant at the nursery of the Oriental was Rs.58/-per plant inclusive of royalty. Oriental informed Scarlet that out of 8 var










































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top