The main legal point established is that in cases involving disputed claims and alleged fraudulent acts, the court may direct the trial to proceed and be disposed of within a specified timeframe to ensure timely resolution.

The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C.No.114 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry and quash the same.

2. The respondent /complainant filed the case against the petitioner/accused stating that the petitioner herein approached the proprietor/respondent and sought for employment as Manger stating that he had vast experience in the field. The accused was offered appointment as Manager of the company being promoted and he was instructed to take necessary steps to get the provisional registration and to look after other official works also which are normally done by managerial personnel. The accused with ulterior motives had obtained the provisional licence for Rathna Leather Company impersonating himself as the proprietor. The accused obtained the provisional licence on 28.06.1996. When the complainant became aware of the said fact, the accused was confronted but he stated that it was done mistakenly by him for convenience sake to get easily without troubling the proprietor. Thus the accused was required to take necessary steps to get the mistake corrected and accordingly amendments were effected on 011. 1996 in the provisional licence No.590317648 dated 28.06.1996 changing the name of ownership of M/s. Rathna Leather Co, from P.Selvam to G.Vivekanandan. In the no-objection certificate issued by District Industries Centre, Government of Pondicherry, also such an amendment was carried out on 012. 1996. The accused himself had taken necessary steps to effect the amendment, subsequently, the certificate of Registration under Central Sales Tax Act and Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act were also issued in the name of G.Vivekanandan only as proprietor of Rathna Leather Co.

3. The complainant submits that only G.Vivekanandan is recognised as proprietor of Rathna Leather Company by the office of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade also. Further, since the incorporation of M/s. Rathna Leather Co, only Vivekanandan is operating the bank accounts in his capacity as sole proprietor. He only made necessary application to the Exchange Central Department of Reserve Bank of India for allotment of Exporters Code Number. The accused, apart from obtaining the provisional licence by misrepresenting himself as proprietor was never let to indulge in any act impersonating as proprietor of M/s. Rathna Leather Company. The complainant submits that the accused, who was engaged as Manager of M/s. Rathna Leather Company for some time, discontinued his service, when he was queried about certain irregularities found in the financial affairs and account books of the company and ever since is vindictively trying to disturb the business of the complainant and to malign it before every authority under the Government and before its customers.

4. Further, the accused himself had caused to issue a notice dated 14.04.1997 accepting himself as Manager and Vivekanandan as proprietor of M/s.Rathna Leather Company, but on 05.06.1997 the accused, utilising the letter head paper of the complainant, wrongly and unauthorisedly sent a letter to the Director of Industries, Pondicherry, claiming that his no-objection was obtained for chage of ownership by force and threats and praying not to change the ownership. The accused sent copies of the said letter to 23 persons and offices, including the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Air Carriage Complex, Madras-27. Consequently, the duty draw back (incentives given by the Government at 8% during the relevant period) was stopped for three months from June 1997. The complainant was able to get the said amount after a delay of three months, only with much hardship, as the complainant was constrained to go and explain his ownership. During this period, due to such criminal acts of the accused, the name and the business of the complainant got affected. The accused, after being removed from service of M/s.Rathna Leather Company