LexM.D. SONALIKA INTERNATIONAL TRACTOR LTD. versus DINESH SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'A [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1031 M.D. SONALIKA INTERNATIONAL TRACTOR LTD. v. DINESH SHARMA & ORS. Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2009 MARCH 24, 2009 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 190 - Complaint before Magistrate -Against dealer and manufacturer of tractor C - Alleging misrepresentation while selling the tractor - Held: Complaint is not maintainable against the manufacturer as complaint does not show any a/legation against him. Respondent No.1, who purchased a tractor manufactured by appellant-Company from respondent D No.3 (dealer), filed a complaint u/ss. 1208, 420 and 468 IPC. It was alleged that the dealer falsely represented the capacity of the engine of the tractor and cheated him. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Sessions Judge, in revision directed the Magistrate to register the complaint. E High Court rejected the revision challenging the order of Sessions Judge. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : A bare reading of the complaint shows that F there was no allegation so far as the appellant is concerned. In any event, in the evidence recorded, no specific role was attributed to the appellant. That being so, the complaint proceedings cannot be maintained qua G the appellant and are set aside. [Paras 8 and 9] [1035-F-G] State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 - relied on. 1031 H 1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A Case Law Reference I~ 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 Relied on. Para 7 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2009 B From the Judgement and Order dated 24.05.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Bench at Gawalior in Crl. Revision No. 257 of 2007. ..... ' D. Mehta, Vipin Gogia, Jaspreet Gogia, K.K. Gonga, for 1 c the Appellants. Rajesh, V.K. Shukla, K.K. Mohan, for the Respondents. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by D DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. ..j ... 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant questioning E the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, Bhind. 3. Backgrounds facts as projected by the appellant are as ~ follows: F On 19.6.2002 respondent No.1 purchased a tractor manufactured by the appellant from respondent No.3. On 12.5.2003 respondent No.1 filed a complaint bearing No.87 of 2003 in the District Consumer Forum, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh alleging that the dealer (respondent No.3) had represented at G the time of purchase of the tractor that the capacity of the same t .... ;. is 40HP (horse power) and accordingly payment was made but after some time the applicant came to know that the said tractor is made of 1035 tafe tractor engine and the model of the said tafe engine is Simpson S-324 of which power capacity is 35 H HP. It was thus submitted that trusting the opposite parties and .. MO. SONALIKA INTERNATIONAL TRACTOR LTD. 1033 V. DJNESH SHARMA & ORS. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] having faith on the company and believing that the tractor is A made of 40HP the applicant paid for the same where the tractor is not more than 35 HP. On 22. 7.2003 the District Consumer Forum, Bhind dismissed the complaint filed by respondent No.1 and observed . 8 as under: " ... on careful consideration it is 40 SAE and not 40 HP in the cash memo dated 19.6.2002 issued at 'the time of purchase of the said tractor by the complainant. The 40SAE power capacity of the said sold Sonalika D1 740 tractor C is shown in the report of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development Corporation, Ludhiana. As such the capacity of 40SAE of the tractor sold and purchased by complainant as per cash memo showing 40SAE is proved · in view of the above report of Mechanical Engineering D Research and Development Corporation." On 25.6.2004 after more than 2 years from the date of purchase of the tractor and one year from the date of dismissal of complaint by the District Consumer Forum, Bhind, the respondent No.1 with ulterior motives filed a complaint case E No.896 of 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gohad, M.P. against respondent No.3 as well as the present appellant under Sections 1208, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). In the complaint the allegation made is tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.