BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED versus ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED & OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 09-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
655
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED
v.
ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED &
OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2019)
MAY 09, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 379, 403, 411 r/w. s. 120B – Theft
and misappropriation of the documents – A Company petition was
filed before Company Law Board (CLB) – In the said Company
petition, documents No. 1 to 54 were filed by the respondents –
Appellant-company alleged that respondents had stolen/
misappropriated documents No. 1 to 54 from the appellant’s premises
– It was alleged that documents No. 2 to 28 were photocopied and
then they were kept back in the premises – However, documents No.
29 to 54 were not returned and the same were in the possession of
the respondents – Pursuant thereto, appellant-company filed criminal
complaint u/ss. 379, 403, 411 r/w. s. 120B IPC – After examining
employee ‘D’ of the appellant company and complainant ‘S’ (a
representative of the company), the Trial court found sufficient
grounds for proceeding against all the respondents and also ordered
issuance of summons to the respondents for the offences punishable
u/ss. 380, 411 and 120B IPC – Aggrieved, respondents filed petition
u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court held that since original of documents
No. 1 to 28 were still in the custody of the complainant, thus the
complaint would not survive in respect of the documents No. 1 to 28
– However complaint was allowed by the High Court, insofar as
documents No. 29 to 54 were concerned and the matter was remitted
to the Trial court – On appeal, held: The allegations in the statement
of complainant ‘S’ were vague and lacked material particulars as
to the commission of theft – Complainant has neither attributed to
any facts nor material particulars as to the commission of theft – In
the complaint, there were no specific averments against respondents
as to how they were responsible in moving the documents out of the
possession of the appellant – Further, the statement of the employee
‘D’ was only a bare statement that respondents had procured
documents from the custody of the appellant – In the instant case,
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 655
655
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
the satisfaction of the magistrate was on presumptive footing – Neither
the statement of the complainant nor the statement of ‘D’ contained
particulars as to the commission of offence – There was no
application of mind by the magistrate in taking cognizance of the
offence against the respondents – Also, issuance of summons was
also not very well founded and the same cannot be sustained – So
far as, the allegations of retention of documents No. 29 to 54 are
concerned, there are no allegation as to when and how the original
documents were removed and retained by the respondents – No
prima-facie case is made out against the accused persons – Supreme
Court has the power to quash any judicial proceedings u/Art. 136
of the Constitution – Thus, criminal complaint qua the documents
No. 29 to 54 quashed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 202 – Scope of enquiry
– Held: The scope of enquiry under this section is extremely
restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations
made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should
be issued or not u/s. 204 Cr.P.C. or whether the complaint should
be dismissed by resorting to  s.203 Cr.P.C. on the footing that there
is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements
of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any – At the stage of
enquiry u/s. 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is only concerned with the
allegations made in the complaint or the evidence in support of the
averments in the complaint to satisfy himself that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issuance of process –
Held: To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as an
accused is a serious matter affecting one’s dignity and reputation
in the society – In taking recourse to such a serious matter in
summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise
than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to
whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential
ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds
for proceeding against the accused.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 29 – Document –  Held: The “document”
as defined in s.29 IPC is a “moveable property” within the meaning
o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.