Karnataka High Court
United Marine Products vs State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.256 of 2013
BETWEEN:
United Marine Products,
No.8, D.No.14-3-187/8,
Basement Floor,
Souza Arcade,
Near UMC Hospital,
Balmatta,
Mangalore - 575 001.
Represented by its Partner,
M/s. United Marine Products,
Sri. U.K.Ahmed Sharief,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of Sri. U.K.Sayyaon,
Residing at Mukkachery,
Ullal, Mangalore - 575 001. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. T.I. Abdulla, Advocate for M/s. Hegde Associates,
Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by
2
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Station House Officer,
Mangalore South Police Station,
Mangalore - 575 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Raja Subramanya Bhat, Government Pleader)
*****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
praying to set aside the order passed in Crime No.32/2013 by
the II Additional Senior Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mangalore, dated: 27.2.2013.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
The petition coming on for admission is considered for final disposal, as any order passed on Interlocutory Application No.1/2013 for direction, would amount to final disposal of the petition. Accordingly, the petition is considered for final disposal.
3
2. The petitioner is said to be a registered firm with eleven partners, carrying on trade in fish products, for the purpose of manufacture and export, under the name and style of M/s United Marine Products, with effect from the year 2007. The firm is carrying on the business of export of fish oil and other products to various countries. It has its unit at Goa and has a large number of buyers abroad and it is well established. It had entered into a distribution agreement in the year 2012 with M/s Ateneo Associates Private Limited, a company registered in Singapore, for the export of fish meal and fish oil for a period of five years. On 5.2.2013, the petitioner had received a notice from its banker, Corporation Bank, Pandeshwar Branch, Mangalore, informing that their current account with the bank bearing No.CBCA 92, had been frozen pursuant to the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mangalore. Thereafter, it was found out that one M/s Mukka Sea Food Products Private Limited, had lodged a complaint with the second respondent - Police, in which, one of the 4 partners of the petitioner has been impleaded as an accused and in view of that, the second respondent had directed the petitioner's banker, Corporation Bank, by a letter dated 2.2.2013, to freeze the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had obtained a copy of the complaint and the First Information Report and has realized that the complainant has alleged the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 66, 71 and 72 of the Information Technology Act,2000. Though there is only a passing reference to one of the partners of the firm, the Police have directed the banker to freeze the bank account, though there was no such direction issued by any court at that point of time. The petitioner thereafter approached the court below seeking appropriate direction to defreeze the account. The lower court, by its order dated 27.2.2013, has rejected the petition holding that the matter is under investigation. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court. 5
3. The sum and substance of the allegation against one of the partners of the petitioner - firm is to the effect that the said partner, who was arraigned as accused no.3, is a competitor of the complainant and that he was jealous of the success of the complainant and therefore, in order to cheat and defraud the complainant, had contacted the first and second accused, who were employees of the complainant and they, in collusion with each other, had contacted one Chang Lee of Singapore and started exporting the products through the ports at Mumbai, Goa, Mangalore and Cochin. Whereas it was the complainant, who was earlier supplying Jen lee. It is on that basis that the court below has also held that since the matter was under investigation and as serious allegations have been made against the partner of the petitioner - firm, the directions issued by the Police have been approved.
4. As already pointed out, the allegation is one of the petitioner poaching the market of the complainant, at best. 6 The question of fraud alleged is self serving. On the face of it, it would indicate that the complainant could sue the petitioner for damages if at all on account of unethical business practices. The allegations, even it could be construed as criminal in nature, require that the freezing of the bank account, which would spell financial ruin of the petitioner, ought not to have been done in a cavalier fashion on the direction of the police, in the face of the allegations, that do not indicate any such serious fraud or misappropriation. In the absence of any other serious circumstance and the court below also having taken a view that the matter is under investigation, could not have frozen the bank account, which according to the petitioner, is credited with over Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Even if the court was of the opinion that any monies ought to have been secured at the instance of the complainant to protect his interest, there ought to have been an indication of the extent of loss that has occasioned to the complainant and that it was attributable to the firm and its partners, it may have then been possible for the firm to have 7 been placed on terms. It is even now stated that there is no quantification of any such loss and therefore, it is wholly unfair and certainly a miscarriage of justice in having frozen the account of the petitioner. While observing that it may be possible, after completion of the investigation and on an indication of the loss, if at all, when quantified and if the court below is satisfied that the petitioner - firm and its partners are answerable for any such loss, it may at that stage, provided the petitioner - firm and its partners are named as accused, to place them on terms. The present order, which has been passed by the court below, affirming the action of the police, would therefore have to be set aside.
The petition is allowed. Annexure E-1 is set aside. The direction issued is no longer binding on the banker of the petitioner - Corporation Bank, Pandeshwar Branch, Mangalore.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv