LexM/S KUNSTOCOM ELECTRONICS (I) PVT. LTD. versus GILT PACK LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS KUNSTOCOM ELECTRONICS (I) PVT. LTD. A v. GILT PACK LTD. AND ANR. JANUARY 24, 2002 [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, JJ.] B Criminal law : Penal Code, J860-Section 420-Failure to supply raw material to respondent as per contract-Case of cheating filed against appellant before C Trial Court-Summons issued to the appellant-Jn appeal, High Court declined to interfere at this stage-Appellant filing objections and an application to drop the proceedings before Trial Court-Trial Court ho!ding a prima facie case of cheating against the appellant-Jn appeal, High Court again declined to interfere giving liberty to the appellant to file objections on framing the D charges-Held, since the Trial Court has held a prima facie case of cheating against the appellant, the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction to decide the petition on merits-Hence, remanded back to the High Court--CrimiJl.al Procedure Code J973-Section 482. Respondent-company entered into a contract with a German E company, through the appellant-company, for purchase of 1500 MT of polypropylene bastec, which is a raw material for manufacture of HDPE/ PP bags. The respo:ident opened an irrevocable letter of credit for the full quantity as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The German company shipped only 50 MT and failed to supply the remaining quantity F stating unforseen circumstances. The respondent filed a case of cheating under Section 420 IPC against the appellant before trial court and alleging a loss of$ 2,36,250 incurred on account of rise in prices during the interregnum. The trial court issued summons to the appellant. The appellant filed a petition before High Court under Section 482 CrPC against the sumons of the trial court. The High Court declined to entertain G the petition and gave liberty to the appellant to raise objections before the trial court and directed the trial court to consider the objections before passing a reasoned order. The appellant filed objections and an application before the trial court seeking to drop the proceedings. The trial court, by a reasoned order, rejected the application holding that there was a prima H 435 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R. A facie case of cheating under section 420 IPC against the appellant. The appellant again filed a petition before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for dropping the proceedings. The High Court again declined to ...... .. interfere with the proceedings giving liberty to the appellant to file objections at the time of framing of charges by the trial court. B In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the High Court was wrong in declining to exercise its jurisdiction and hearing the petition on merits; and that the respondent failed to prove the case of cheating under section 415 IPC. The tf'espondent contended that there was no case for interference .::;; c by this Court since the High Court has given liberty to the appellant to .. raise objections at the time of framing of the charges by the trial court; and that no error was committed by the trial court in taking cognizance of the offence. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : High Court was not justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction and adjudicating the matter on merits. Raising the objections at the time of framing the charges would practically be an empty formality as the trial court had already taken a definite view in the matter. The High E Court in passing the order has virtually ignored the spirit behind the direction given and observations made in the earlier order. There is no hard and fast rule that the objection as to cognizability of the offence and maintainability of the complaint shall be allowed to be raised only at the time of framing the charges. Such was not the intention of the High Court • F in passing the earlier order. Hence the order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the H.igh Court for fresh disposal of ,. the petition on merits expeditioulsy. 1439-E-G; 440-EJ Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani & Anr., 11998) 7 SCC 698, relied on. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2002. ..,,, From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.2000 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M. Crl. C. No. 4193 of 1998. H Shanti Bhushan, Vinay Garg, Mrs. Deepam Garg and Rajesh Yadav for A. KUNSTOCOM ELEC. (I) PVT.LTD. 1· GILT PAC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.