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

2021 Supreme(Kar) 57

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Sri Kunal Bahl – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.4676 of 2020 And Criminal Petition No.4712 of 2020
Decided on : 07-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI.C.V. NAGESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANJANTHI SAJAN POOVAYYA, ADVOCATE)
For the Respondent: SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP

Point of Law:Cheating – Quash of proceedings - criminal proceedings cannot be initiated after a period of 6 years, irrespective of the applicability of limitation period in terms of Section 468 of the Cr. P.C or not

Headnote:

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 27(a)(ii) and 18(c) - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 2(1)(w), 79(2)(c) and 27(b)(ii) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 202(1), 191(1)(a) and 204 - Agreed for transactions on Website - Selling and delivering fake - Cheating and dishonesty - Two petitions filed essentially averments made in both the petitions are one and same - Petitions arise out of Criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners in both matters and certain others for alleged violation of Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Buyer elects to purchase a Product through the Website shall receive order for Product only in the capacity of an online marketplace - Seller also has agreed for transactions on Website - selling and delivering fake, duplicate, spurious, counterfeit, refurbished or previously owned Products thronged the Website will cause great prejudice and harm to the reputation and goodwill of Snapdeal and may also cause harm and prejudice to Buyers –

Finding of the Court:

crime was originally committed - Intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act or its directors/officers would not be liable for any action or inaction on part of a vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place - Intermediary would not be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 on its platform since the essential ingredients of Section 18 (1)(c) of Act not having been fulfilled - Neither Snapdeal nor its Directors can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of Act - There being no acceptable explanation for highly belated lodging of Complaint, the delay is fatal to these proceedings –

Result: Petitions are allowed

ORDER :

1. The Petitioners in Crl.P. No.4676/2020 are the Directors of Snapdeal Private Limited, accused No.2. They are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

    a) Call for records in C.C.No.156/2020 pending before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru;

b) Quash the Complaint the Complaint dated 5.6.2020 in C.C.No.156/2020 pending on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CMM, Mysuru; and

c) Quash the order dated 8.6.2020 and further proceedings pending in C.C.No.156/2020 pending before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CMM, Mysuru taking Cognisance of the offences punishable under Section 27(a)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and issuing Summons to the petitioners.

2. The Petitioner in Crl.P. No.4712/2020 is Snapdeal Private limited who is seeking for the following reliefs:

    a) Call for records in C.C.No.156/2020 pending before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru;

b) Quash the Complaint the Complaint dated 5.6.2020 in C.C.No.156/2020 pending on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CMM, Mysuru; and c) Quash the order dated 8.6.2020 and further proceedings pending in C.C.No.156/2020 pending before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CMM, Mysuru taking Cognisance of the offences punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and issuing Summons to the petitioners.

3. Though there are two petitions filed, essentially the averments made in both the petitions are one and the same. Both the petitions arise out of the Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.156/2020 initiated against the petitioners in both the matters and certain others for alleged violation of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

4. In the petitions it is contended as under:

Background of Snapdeal

    4.1. Jasper Infotech Private Limited [now Snapdeal Private Limited (Petitioner)], was incorporated in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Snapdeal’), the said company started an online marketplace in February 2010, namely “Snapdeal.com” which is claimed to be India’s largest online marketplace, with the widest assortment of 60 million plus products across 800 categories from regional, national and international brands and retailers.

4.2. Snapdeal is ‘intermediary’ as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’). An ‘intermediary’ under the Information Technology Act, 2000, includes an onlinemarket place. Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

“Section 2(1) in The Information Technology Act, 2000 (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(w) “intermediary”, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes;]”

4.3. DIRECTORS:

The directors in Crl.P. No.4676/2020 are the directors of the Petitioner in Crl.P.No.4712/2020. They have been arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 in the Complaint. Snapdeal’s relationship with Seller and Seller obligations

4.4. In order to upload, sell or even ‘offer for sale’ any product on Snapdeal, a seller h as to create an account with Snapdeal and contractually agree to the terms of the following documents:-

4.4.1. Snapdeal’s Terms of Use, which contains the basic terms and conditions of using Snapdeal that every user (including every Seller) has to agree with. These terms are publicly available at https://www.snapdea1.com/offers/terms of- use.

4.4.2. Snapdeal’s Terms of Offer for Sale, which contains the basic terms and conditions pertaining to sale of products on Snapdeal which every user/seller has to agree with.

                    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 Back to top