Karnataka High Court
M/S Supreme Chemiplast vs State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2011
'EN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"" DAY 01? ms' 201 1,
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE "
CiRL.P.No.911 OF 20111 "
Misc.cr1.No.181:2/291': '
BETWEEN:
1. M/s, Supreme Chemipiastg _
Piping Private Igixfnitedg' -- V'
No.5~A, OWT1€f:5.._CfOuITt, V. "
No.37, Montieth L.:«:ne,s~--.
Egmore, _ V .
Chenn,aieAs5E}.O 008,. »
Repres.en€;éd_ by" its. Managing 'Director
Sri5'Sim.-"o:r_1 'J011€s;f:-- , _ ; " '-- V
2. Siriionf}_Jon£5:s, M M
IS/---3'Laté.i3.,AL;:JOs§:ph,' n
Residingnt NO.' 1 ~ ,
Sdofammail 5':Z~.tr'eé1_..=, Egmore,
-- , Chenn_ai~5(3O 'O08.
" Petitioners
[Common in both Criminal Petition
and M:isc:.CrI. No.1819/11}
. '*EsLdhav, Advocate}
State of Karnataka,
By Assistant Commissioner of
Police (Special Enquiry)9
Central Crime Branch,
N.T.Pe:t, Bangalors City.
3%"
\
'3
Represented by the State Public l3roseeiitor;il,:T'*i.
High Court Building, -i
Bangalore~560 001. « ;_. .
. K .Re'spon.d'e"nt . 1 0'
{Common in both Ci'li"i~i§~I18__.l' .l?et.itio_n "
and i\/liso.Cri;'"No. 1819/nil ls} .. "
[By Sri.H.i\/l.Thimrnarayappa, Special ~i5ulli:l_ie* list]
This Criminal Petiti'on'*~is filedlunderl
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside"'i'th"e ordeiadated 20.03.2010
passed by the Presiding Officer, East 'l'ra.ol{_C1ourt~VIIl,
Bangalore City C'rl.RV.Pi.l\'o;8.l9/2004 thereby
dismissing the Crl.R."P. sand l:onfii*ifii.ing_the order dated
06.04.2004 passed in VC;CV.NV_o.j2900 /21.00-l--i passed by the
I Additional 'Chief 3_Vletropolita:n__ lvlagivstrate, Bangalore
City. . 0'
Misey,C-if1',l_\lo.ll819/'_lIris filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C*.i--*'prgaying1Ito. stayfi all"further proceedings pending
in Ci_.C.N_o§'2900/20-Ql=.__on the file of the learned l
Additional Chi€lf,l\/IetrQ_poliitan Magistrate at Bangalore
Citv. =
" Tghisll _ V' 'Crini'inal petition along with
iViise.Crl.No.l8'l9./Tlvl coming for admission on this day,
eoiirtliinade the following:
ORDER
petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for setting aside the order it " 20,532,010 passed by the learned Presiding 0' "iy_l'(3'i'illoer, Fast Track Court~Vlll, Bangalore City in 0' ___§Revision Petition No.3l9/2004 dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition and confirming the order dated 3':
i 0 654.2904» passed in CiC.i\§0.2900/2001 by the 1 Additional CMM, Bangalore.
2. The petitioners herein have been""a__:rr2iig1dedi' V' accused Noel and 2 in C.C.NcvL;2i)G'9','.Q'*1_ 9 with accused No.3 are. _zicc1:sed.. of "0fi*ei9iees..p punishable under Secti0ne'V"2>i:é4; 420 [PC 1'/W 34 IPCifii'he made against the accused perseifis areAVV_the.t Urban Water Supply had invited 23.9.1997 from the of Water Supply Scheriie Town and other places in Kajfiivatiaka. ~..V£V\iccueed Nc.1«i\/I/s. Supreme Chemiplast .9 Limited of which accused No.2~Simon H Managing Direcétor, applied as pre-qualified cciifirectcr and was declared as preciassified contractor 2 bjyxpthe said Board, Accused No.1 represented by its V§iT\/ianaging Directcr, accused No.2 was given the contract of providing water supply at Chickmagaiur T own from Yagachi river by the Bearde reseiiiiien passed on 4 3.12.1998 for a total cost of Rs,13,Cizi1cO3,121.26 pa, In this regard, it is further alleged against theee,..acc'U_eed persons that after approval of this accused No.2 authorised accused,VN_o.8,_--"by vpower of attorney to execute the agreeinentcwith».the:'Board.an:d accordingly, accused No.3 onr.1oeha1'f of the..vac:cueedj No. ~ Company entered into an .ttIit1a..thei§Board on 15.2.1999 with while entering into such (V'V['\1o.1--- Company representedT»_'oj;":1itVs;f accused No.3, as produced performance guarantee /~ and bank guarantee for moVbi_1izati'en_"cfV payment of Rs.1,30,40,000/-- h.aVeV"Vbee'nV issued by the Oriental Bank of Elorzttrierce~1o§:ated at Chennai favouring the Managing D-i:rect.er:o§'Athe Board and 1ater these bank guarantees AA were vfdund to be fabricated and created by the accused '--..v"pereens in cellusion with each other with a common fiintention of cheating the Board.
5 .. .
3. It is the contention of the petiti0nersV.«*;hafefieiz. if the aflegatiens made in the Charge sheet its face Value the offence a11ege»Vd"'e0_u1d .;beV:"a.'ttrihVute:i only to accused No.3 and net therefore the prosecution"*1.au.ncheC%aagainsii Vfhem liable to be quashed,"
4. On =bveha1:f"' -- Board, e1%j."sepé;:a1ee: State Public "'the':g.tV1;ia1 Court has already treaihhvof the case is fixed on 1.6.2<z3'I_1: to the contentions of these petitioners thef,r..:1ufhe'1'5ised accused No.3 ta execute the ' Aagreehzerit andhythey bank guarantee was furnished by behalf of the company. The allegations against accused Nos} to 23 is that ail ef them ACO111idh§;5:d together and furnished the bank guarantee was fake and fabricated one. Questien as to 'whether these petitioners had any role :0 play 1:} furnishing such bank guarantee has to be proved after a fail fledged triai. Therefere, at this stage, it cannot be 6 said that the prosecution lodged against'-"*--.these petitioners is' abuse of precees of court r1OIT.e"i~t,VV"e:é::1"'be said that prosecution against these tight' initiated with malafides. HaViI7:§Wte:ga:d".t0~i ezhd circumstances of the case; it is epen to Tthe : petiti;er1efsw.e to urge all these contentionV"se*.§,{s defehee"'dtiririg the trial and the trial Courtifls .te~-..consiVdefV all these contentions after reee'V1_*dihg'V vhh-'.j'V_~e»V51denee of the witnesses. ;{I':L*th'is vtew_ I find no merit in this petitgidfi'.'p_««..ffi1e1fef0iie.,fitheefpetitieon is rejected. Séié §e.§e5e