The judgment established the importance of specific allegations, fraudulent intention, and entrustment in cases related to cheating and commercial transactions, and emphasized the necessity of following the mandate under Section 202 Cr.P.C, 1973.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhya, J.

(1) This revision is directed against the proceedings which was initiated against the present petitioners pursuant to a complaint filed by the de facto complainant on 16th June 2016, in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. Petitioners are the directors/government servants working for gain with the opposite party No.1 company, that is, Hindustan Insecticides Limited having its registered office at New Delhi.

(2) Crux of the allegation against the petitioners as enumerated in the 6 page long complaint may be stated to be that the complainant once were induced by the petitioners to deliver goods. Subsequently the petitioners floated tenders when the defecto complainant participated and emerged to be the ‘LI’ bidder. Pursuant to the work order, the defacto complainant supplied goods. Allegedly the petitioners refused to accept the supplied goods on the pretext of that being of inferior quality. Quality was ascertained after quality control checking tests. The de facto complainant has supplied goods of a sum of Rs. 1,75,440/-. However even after rejecting the goods, those were not returned back to the defacto complainant. The money was also not paid. The goods are still in the custody of the petitioners. Accordingly the defecto complainant was aggrieved of the deceitful manner in which they have been treated by the petitioners and the accused company. Also they are aggrieved of the breach of trust committed to them by present petitioners. Hence the complaint. Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same, examined two witnesses under section 200 Cr.P.C, 1973 and issued summons against the present petitioners.

(3) Mr. Biswajit Manna along with Mr. Somnath Roy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the de facto complainant participated in the tender process for supply of goods (active carbon) floated on 25th June 2015. Defacto complainant participated in the process by sending quotation dated 1st July 2015 and ultimately obtained the tender. A written purchase order was issued to them on 7th July 2015. Allegations of deceitfully compelling them to supply goods to the accused company is denied.

(4) It is submitted and accepted that on 6th August 2015 the complainant has supplied 2 metric tons of activated carbon to the factory of the petitioner company at Rasayani, District – Raigad, Maharashtra. It is further submitted that quality control check was done of the goods supplied at the said factory and those were found of inferior quality than was requisitioned. It is submitted that as the goods did not confirm with the specified quality requisitioned, those were not accepted and the work order was terminated.

(5) According to him the entire transaction happened pursuant to a commercial affair and no element of any criminality is at all involved in the same. He says that the complaint does not reveal any element or ingredient of offense as alleged against the petitioners. He further says that no cognizable case is at all made out in the said complaint against the petitioners. According to him pursuant to the laws settled to govern the field the instant complaint should not be maintained against the petitioners. He says that committing the petitioners to trial pursuant to the said complaint dated 16th June, 2016, would in one way prejudice the petitioners and in the other way shall abuse the process of court. According to him on this count the entire proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed, being illegal.

(6) The second point raised by the petitioners is that to make the directors, that is, the petitioners liable for any action of the accused company, their involvement as to the day to day affairs of the company at the time of commission of the alleged offence should have been specifically pleaded in the complaint. Their role as to the affairs and management of the company should have been brought on record in specific terms in the complaint to make the same maintainab