LEE KUN HEE & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 4 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 01-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 4 S.C.R. 287 
LEE KUN HEE & ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 1, 2012 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND JAGDISH SINGH 
KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 2, 403, 405, 415, 418, 420 and 
A 
B 
423 r/w ss. 1208 and 34: 
c 
Territorial jurisdiction of courts in India - Agreement 
between intermediary buyer (based abroad) and seller (based 
in Delhi, India) to purchase certain products which were to be 
further transferred by the intermediary buyer to ultimate 
beneficiary (foreign company, based in Dubai) - Upon supply D 
of the product, the ultimate beneficiary was to issue a Bill of 
Exchange in favour of the intermediary buyer who was to 
further endorse the same to the seller towards payment of 
goods which were supplied by the seller from Ghaziabad -
Ultimate beneficiary not honouring its commitment under the 
E 
bill of exchange - Issuance of legal notice by seller to the 
ultimate beneficiary - However, the ultimate beneficiary not 
making payment - Criminal complaint by seller ulss. 403, 
405, 415, 418, 420 and 423 r/w ss. 1208 and 34 before the 
Magistrate at Ghaziabad against appellants-the ultimate 
F 
beneficiary and the foreign parties (officials allegedly 
connected with the offence) - Summoning order ulss. 403, 
405, 420 and 423 r/w ss. 1208 and 34 - Challenged by the 
appellants on the ground that courts in India had no 
jurisdiction to entertain the criminal complaint filed by the 
G 
seller against the appellants - Held: The competent court at 
Ghaziabad has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in 
the matter uls. 179, 181(4) and 182 Cr.P.C. - The factum of 
287 
H 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 4 S.C.R. 
A supply of goods from Ghaziabad (in India) to Dubai (in the 
United Arab Emirates), as an essential component of the 
offences allegedly committed by the accused, is relatable to 
the words "anything which has been done" used in s. 179 -
Since the complainant-seller allegedly held the bill of 
B exchange at Ghaziabad in India, the consequence emerging 
out of the said denial of encashment of the bill of exchange, 
'ensued' at Ghaziabad in India - Bill of exchange issued by 
the ultimate beneficiary was received and is allegedly being 
held by seller at Ghaziabad in India - Ultimate beneficiary by 
C a letter denied its liability towards seller under the bill of 
exchange and the said response on behalf of ultimate 
beneficiary was received by seller at Ghaziabad in India -
Thus, it cannot be said that the actions attributed by the seller 
to the appellants have no connectivity to territorial jurisdiction 
0 
in India - Submission of the appellants about their foreign 
nationality, their residence outside India, and the fact that they 
were not present in India when the offence(s) was/were 
allegedly committed, of no consequence - They would not be 
protected uls. 2 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 179, 
181 and 182 - Jurisdiction. 
E 
Summoning order u/ss. 403, 405, 420 and 423 r/w ss. 
1208 and 34 - Challenge to -
On the ground that the 
appellants- ultimate beneficiary and the foreign parties 
(officials allegedly connected with the offence) were not privy 
F to contract/agreement thus, could not be proceeded against 
for breach of the agreement - Held: Pleadings prima facie 
demonstrate connectivity of the appellants with the 
foundational basis expressed in the complaint - One of the 
accused also supported the accusation - Thus, at this stage 
G it is not desirable to exculpate the appellants from 
proceedings initiated by the complainant before the 
Magistrate - Said issue may be re-agitated after production 
of evidence by rival parties before the trial court. 
H 
Summoning order ulss. 403, 405, 420 and 423 r/w ss. 
LEE KUN HEE & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 289 
1208 and 34 - Challenge to - On the ground that the charges A 
not made out against the appellants-ultimate beneficiary and 
the foreign parties (officials allegedly connected with the 
offence); that the appellants being functionaries of a company 
per se could not be made vicariously liable for offences 
emerging out of actions taken in discharge of their B 
responsibilities towards the company; and that the appellants 
had no concern with the allegations leveled by the 
complainant - Held: Statement of the complainant uls. 200 
Cr. P. C. categorically asserted that the appellants were jointly 
and severally liable to honour the bill of exchange endorsed c 
in the favour 

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