Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, J.
Bata India Ltd. and Ors.
versus
State of W.B. and Ors.
C. R. R. No. 1580 of 2007 with CRAN No. 1027 of 2007
Decided on : 26 -9 -2007.
CRIMINAL REVISION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDING - SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - OFFENCE OF CHEATING - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - DISHONEST INTENTION - TIME OF INDUCEMENT - BURDEN OF PROOF - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 415 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Bata India Ltd., was accused of cheating the complainant, Sambhu Maiti, by inducing him to undertake a carpentry job at their corporate office in Gurgaon on the assurance of making payments. The complainant alleged that the petitioner failed to make payments despite repeated assurances, causing him financial trouble. The petitioner contended that there was no privity of contract between them and that the complainant was an agent of the architect who had contracted with the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the FIR did not disclose a prima facie case of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It observed that the essential ingredient of cheating, namely, dishonest intention at the time of inducement, was not present. The Court noted that the petitioner had made payments to the architect, who was the complainant's principal, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner had any intention to deceive the complainant or to induce him to do the job without intending to make payment.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? 2. Whether the petitioner had the dishonest intention to deceive the complainant at the time of inducement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the FIR did not disclose a prima facie case of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It observed that the essential ingredient of cheating, namely, dishonest intention at the time of inducement, was not present. 2. The Court noted that the petitioner had made payments to the architect, who was the complainant's principal, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner had any intention to deceive the complainant or to induce him to do the job without intending to make payment.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the criminal revision and quashed the proceeding against the petitioner.
2. One Sambhu Maiti who is the O.P. No. 2 herein lodged a petition with the learned C.M.M. Calcutta against the present petitioners alleging the following facts :-
O.P. No. 2 carries on business of contract job of carpentry and the job includes interior and exterior decoration and furnishing under different reputed Interior and Exterior Decoration Company and the business is mainly connected with the labour contract. He has been associated with O.P. No. 3, proprietor of M/s. R.D.G. Interior Decoration Exterior Architrecture since 1999. The said O.P. No. 3 Mr. Sagar Roy undertook a job of interior decoration and furnishing at the Head Office of Bata India Ltd. at 6A S. N. Banerjee Road, Calcutta-700 013 and the O.P. No. 2 was entrusted by the O.P. No. 3 for carpentry job of the said project on contract basis and pursuant to the same he undertook and completed the said job by deploying his staff and received the payments in time. During the second week of February 2004 the said Mr. Sagar Roy called on the O.P. No. 2 in the registered office of the Bata India Ltd. at Calcutta and asked him to do some interior and exterior decoration job in the Corporation Office of the Bata India Ltd. at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana. Mr. Sagar Roy along with the officials of the Bata India Ltd. who are the present petitioners herein including their architect i.e. Mr. Monohar Dey explained to the O.P. No. 2 about the nature of the job of interior and exterior decoration to be undertaken in the Bata India Ltd.'s office at Gurgaon and the drawings of the carpentry job was shown to him.
The project required deployment of 50/60 specialized carpenters and the time required for successful completion of the project was estimated to be 2/3 months. The O.P. No. 2 told Mr. Sagar Roy and the petitioners that he would be able to do the job with his team provided residential accommodation was arranged for him and his team at Gurgaon and day-to-day payments were made in addition to payment of outstation work charges. After consultation with the petitioners Mr. Sagar Roy requested the O.P. No. 2 to undertake the job on short term credit basis and assured of payment whenever the said Mr. Sagar Roy would receive payment from Bata India Ltd. and such assurances given by Mr. Sagar Roy were duly affirmed by the present petitioners who are accused No. 6 as per the petition. Work started at Gurgaon from 12-2-2004 on the basis of the drawings supplied by the architect of Bata India Ltd. and with the material supplied by the said Mr. Sagar Roy and the sum of Rs. 1 lac was paid to O.P. No. 2 by the said Mr. Sagar Roy on 23-2-2004 and O.P. No. 2 was requested by the said Mr. Sagar Roy to continue with the work without any break and thus the work was undertaken. By the end of the February 2004 the amount of Rs. 1 lac that was paid earlier was exhausted for payment to the labourers of the O.P. No. 2 and the said O.P. No. 2 requested Mr. Sagar Roy for further payment. Mr. Sagar Roy requested the O.P. No. 2 to continue the work till the middle of March 2004 with assurance of payment by the time. But the labourers of O.P. No. 2 along with his team returned to Kolkata on 1-3-2004 and by then more than Rs. 1 lac was found due with Mr. Sagar Roy. On 8-3-2004 Mr. Sagar Roy called the O.P. No. 2 at the office of the Bata India Ltd. at Kolkata and again in the presence of the officials of the Bata India Ltd. be requested the O.P. No. 2 to continue and complete the job at Gurgaon on short term credit basis and issued a letter dated 8-3-2004 to the O.P. No. 2 stating the work to be done at the said Gurgaon Office of Bata India Ltd. with assurance of making payment in a shortwhile as and when he
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
