Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Siddharth Luthara, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Samit Gopal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against order dated 30.5.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 3306 of 2010, Case Crime No. 487 of 2008 “State v. Harish Manwani and others”, under Sections 420/34 I.P.C., P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, rejecting application of accused/revisionist seeking discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. as well as against order dated 6.11.2008 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 6, Bareilly taking cognizance upon submission of charge-sheet.

3. The brief facts relating to the case are that the opposite party No. 2 Brijesh Kumar Singh lodged an F.I.R. on 9.5.2008 at Case Crime No. 487 of 2008, under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. against Hindustan Uniliver Ltd. as well as its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, Finance Director and T.S.I. (Territory Sales In-charge) by their names as mentioned in F.I.R., with the allegations that the first informant is resident of Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly and used to purchase articles of domestic use from Uncle Shop in Mohalla Janakpuri; that he came to know through advertisement on television that there is some prize scheme on purchase of ‘Surf Excel’ washing powder which is quite costly and a prize of Rs. 5,00,000/- will be awarded as scholarship for the education of children in case a Swatch of 10/10 is recovered from the pack of washing powder; that shop keeper of Uncle shop also encouraged him for purchase of Surf Excel detergent powder; that out of the packet of Surf Excel a “Swatch” was recovered upon washing which it was found to be a coupon of 10/10; that he asked the owner of Uncle shop for ascertaining delivery of prize money to him who told him that goods were purchased by him from distributor Sanjay Oil Traders, Shyamganj, Bareilly; that the information of prized coupon was sent to the company on the given address through registered post on 28.8.2006 upon which revisionist contacted the first informant claiming himself to be Territory Sales In-charge of company having been sent by company for enquiry and after examining the recovered “Swatch” he assured of delivery of prize and also provided the names of Chairman, Managing Director etc. who could have made enquiry from him; that the accused kept the matter postponing and since no prize was delivered to the first informant, who incurred heavy expenses on purchase of costly washing powder under the false and attractive scheme, necessary action be taken against the accused persons and all the papers as well as the wrapper and coupon/Swatch are with the first informant.

4. Upon investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against all the named office bearers of company viz. Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, Finance Director and T.S.I. under Sections 420/34 I.P.C. and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The copy of F.I.R. and charge-sheet have been filed at Annexures-1 and 10 respectively. The revisionist-accused moved an application seeking his discharge before the Magistrate on 10.2.2014 Annexure-21 which has been rejected by learned Magistrate vide impugned order, giving rise to the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned Magistrate has acted wrongly in rejecting discharge application for following reasons inter alia others, “that charge-sheet has not been filed under Section 406 I.P.C. and has not been filed against the Hindustan Uniliver Ltd. and the applicant being employee of Hindustan Uniliver Ltd. may not be held liable as the principle of vicarious liability does not apply to criminal law; that the revisionist neither launched any prize scheme nor was capable of introducing any such scheme and being Territ