Supreme Court - Daily Orders
P.C. Siva vs M.S. Venkatesh on 7 August, 2014
tZ 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2006
P.C. Siva & Anr. .. Appellant
(s)
Versus
M.S. Venkatesh .. Responden
t(s)
O R D E R
The respondent filed a criminal complaint being P.C.R. No.28 of 2004 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the "Cr.P.C.") in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge & CJM at Mandya, Karnataka praying for registration of a case against the appellants for forgery and cheating under Section 418, 468 and 469 read with Section 34 IPC. It was set forth in the petition that he was the dealer in petrol and petroleum products in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short the "BPCL"). Be it stated, that after the death of the respondent’s father M.S. Srinivasa Murthy the dealership continued in the name of the complainant respondent. In the aforesaid Complaint Petition, it was stated that the accused persons colluded and forged a document dated 21.12.2000 and asked for an explanation from him why his Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Usha Rani Bhardwaj licence should not be cancelled on the ground that he had Date: 2014.08.21 16:09:52 IST Reason: been selling spurious petroleum products and further on the date of visit i.e. 20.12.2000 he had misbehaved with 2 the officers. The Complaint Petition was filed on 28.12.2004 alleging that the accused persons had submitted a forged report and also created a letter in order to cheat the complainant despite the fact that he had not violated any marketing guidelines and there was no visit at the site of petrol pump.
On the basis of the Complaint Petition and the initial statement the learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.05.2000 referred to the letter issued by the General Manager, South Chennai, BPCL, took note of the fact that the provisions contained in Section 463 and 469 IPC and Section 474(1) of Cr.P.C. and came to hold that Section 468 was not attracted as there was no element of cheating. That apart, the learned Magistrate opined that cognizance could not be taken under Section 469 of IPC as it was barred by limitation as stipulated under Section 469 of Cr.P.C.
Assailing the said order the respondent preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No.167 of 2005 before the learned Sessions Judge at Mandya praying for direction to the trial Judge to take cognizance of the offences alleged in the said Complaint Petition. The same was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge on 17 th December, 2015 who came to hold as under: 3
"It is averred in the complaint that the accused cheated the complainant with an intention to cause wrongful loss to him by creating a document for repudiation of the licence issued in favour of the complainant. The complainant has produced the order passed by the General Manager, South Chennai, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. wherein several reasons were assigned for repudiation of the license of the complainant and letter dated 21.12.2000 is not a sole basis for repudiation of licence. Moreover the averments made in the complaint are not sufficient to hold that prima facie the accused have committed the alleged offences. Under these circumstances this Court is of the view that the Magistrate after considering all aspects of the matter had reached to just and proper conclusion in the matter. In my view that the averments made in the complaint are not attracting the ingredients have discharged their duty in the capacity ad officials of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Under these circumstances this court is of the view that the revision petitioner has not made out any grounds to show that the conclusion arrived at by the Magistrate and reasons assigned by the Magistrate (sic) erroneous, perverse and capricious as urged in the petition and the order passed by the Magistrate does not call for the interference of this Court."
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 17.12.2005 the respondent filed a petition being Criminal Petition No.501 of 2006 before the High Court. The High Court analysed the orders passed by the courts below and the allegations that had been made in the Complaint Petition to the effect that the document dated 21.12.2000 had been fraudulently created and the dealership license of the respondent had been cancelled, and came to hold that there was collusion by the accused persons to fabricate the documents which resulted in cancellation of the 4 dealership licence of the respondent. Being of this view, the High Court directed the learned Magistrate to deal with the matter in accordance with Sections 468 and 469 of IPC. The High Court allowed the said petition and set aside the orders passed by the Courts below holding that there was prima facie case for invoking the provisions of Section 468 IPC.
We have heard Mr. Sudhir Chandra learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Satish Chand Gupta learned counsel for the respondent.
We have analysed the provisions in respect of which cognizance has been taken and the basis upon which the High Court has opined that the trial court to take appropriate step. Be it noted, it is only a notice calling for explanation by the respondent No.1 on behalf of BPCL. It reads as follows:
.
This has reference to the visit of the undersigned along with our Sales Officer to your outlet on 20.12.2000 evening.
During the above visit, it was observed that your were selling Spurious Products in our Retail Outlet and when we collected the Sample of Lubricantes/MS/HSD you had forcibly removed the same and threw off the Products. You did not co-operate in conducting the Inspection of the Retail Outlet and also started abusing us with Unparliamentary words.
We had earlier sought your explanation vide our 5 Letter of even Ref. dt. 11.10.2000 and 19.12.2000, towards sale of unauthorized lubricants at your Retail Outlet, for which we are yet to receive your explanation.
We strongly regret towards your above actions, which are the serious violations of clause no. 5 and Clause no. 10 (0) of the DPSL agreement signed between you and the Corporation. We seek your explanation on all the above within seven, days of receipt of this letter failing which we shall be forced to take stringent action as deemed fit."
It is not in dispute that the said letter was written by the Corporation. We really cannot perceive that there was any kind of fabrication of the documents. It was a show cause, regard being had to violation of the terms and conditions of the licence, and the respondent was required to respond and offer his explanation. The respondent could have explained that there was no violation of the licence. The termination has taken effect in pursuance of such notice. But by no streach of imagination it can be said that it tantamounts to cheating or forgery. We really cannot conceive that because of the issuance of the said notice allegations can be made before the Criminal Court that a document had been fabricated. It could have been so, had corporation disputed the said communication. We really also cannot visualise how there can be cheating in the said case and if there is any loss because of such termination, the 6 respondent is definitely entitled in law to sue for damages.
In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and accordingly the complaint petition initiated by the respondent stands dismissed.
....................J. [ DIPAK MISRA ] ....................J. [ S.A. BOBDE ] NEW DELHI, August 07, 2014.
7
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1045/2006
P.C. SIVA & ANR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M.S. VENKATESH Respondent(s)
(with appln. for may refer to remarks and stay and office report)
Date : 07/08/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr.Adv.
Ms.Reshmi Rea Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Murarka, Adv.
Mr. Parijat Sinha ,Adv.
Mr.S.C. Ghosh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Satish Chand Gupta, Adv.for Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal ,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
(USHA BHARDWAJ) (RENUKA SADANA)
AR-CUM-PS (COURT MASTER)
Signed order is placed on the file.