Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Defect in packaging in M/S Dhanraj Shree Kishan Das vs . on 7 July, 2020Matching Fragments
20. The accused, in order to rebut the presumption taken in favour of CC No. 21/16 M/s Dhanraj Shree Kishan Das vs. Royal Varsha Industries Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 10 of 22 the complainant has taken a number of defences in the present case. Primarily, it is stated by the accused that on the day when the cheque was issued to the complainant and on the day of its presentation in the bank, the accused did not owe the amount as mentioned on the cheque in question since an amount of Rs 70,000/- had already been paid to the complainant towards the transaction in issue. Secondly the goods supplied by the complainant faced packaging defects due to which the accused had returned the goods back to the complainant. Thirdly, it is alleged that the cheque in question was merely issued as a security cheque upon which no liability of the accused arises. Lastly the complainant being a partnership firm , CW1 was neither competent to file the complaint in its present form nor can his testimony be relied upon. It is contended by the Ld counsel for the accused that taking into consideration the said defences, the case of the complainant is liable to dismissed.
28. As far as the other defences taken by the accused are concerned, a lot of emphasis has been made throughout the trial to the defence that the goods actually supplied by the complainant were packed in a defective packaging and the accused had received several complaints regarding packaging of the goods from the distributers of the goods.
CC No. 21/16 M/s Dhanraj Shree Kishan Das vs. Royal Varsha Industries Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 18 of 22 The said defence has repeatedly been stated in the reply to the legal demand notice, the notice under section 251 Cr.P.C., the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C and in his examination in chief of DW1. Per contra, the complainant in his cross examination has stated that although the complaint regarding packaging of the goods was received from the accused yet with respect to the defect in packaging it was stated by the complainant that "the packaging part was not pertaining to us. The cartons were supplied by accused himself." It was also stated that the cardboard boxes in which the spices were to be packed were provided by the accused. Further in the complaint it has been stated that the goods were dispatched after an inspection of the packed goods had been done by the accused. Ld counsel for the complainant has also stated that the accused has himself in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C stated that the entire packaging material was provided to the complainant by the accused and hence it cannot be said that there was a defect in the packaging of the goods on account of the complainant.
29. It has also been stated by the accused in his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C and in his examination in chief as DW1 that the goods were returned back to the complainant. The same has however not been stated by the accused in his statement under section 251 Cr.P.C and in the reply to the legal demand notice. In the reply to the legal demand notice it was stated that the complainant should take back the goods from the premises of the accused company. Further no date has been stated by the accused as to when the goods were actually returned CC No. 21/16 M/s Dhanraj Shree Kishan Das vs. Royal Varsha Industries Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 19 of 22 to the complainant. Reliance has been placed upon Ex DW1/2 which is stated to be the office copy of the challan for returning the goods to the complainant. Even though the complainant has not filed any document in rebuttal of the same yet whether or not there was actually a defect in packaging and if yes whether the said defect was due to the conduct of the complainant or the accused and resultantly whether there was a breach in the terms of the agreement are questions which can be agitated between the parties in a civil action. In the facts of the present case, criminal liability cannot be fastened when the requirement as to the 'existing legal liability' does not stand satisfied.