LexMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. & ANR. versus DATAR SWITCHGEAR LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 551 MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION A CO. LTD. & ANR. v. DATAR SWITCHGEAR LTD. & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1979 of 2010) OCTOBER 08, 2010 B [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Power under - Exercise of - Contract between Maharashtra State C Electricity Board (MSEB) and a company - Dispute between parties - Termination of contract by company - Reference of dispute to arbitral tribunal - Final award with observation as regards fabrication of certain documents tendered in evidence by MSEB - Criminal complaint by the company D and its senior officials against MSEB, its Chairman and others for commission of offences u/ss. 192 and 199 r/w s. 34 - Issuance of summons to all named in 'the complaint - Petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. - Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: Prima facie case of offences ulss. 192 and 199 E made out against MSEB - Thus, not a fit case for exercise of power uls. 482 in favour of MSEB - As regards the Chairman of MSEB, no specific averment demonstrating his role in fabricating false evidence before arb.itral tribunal - No indication of existence of pre-arranged plan - Thus, no prima facie case made out against Chairman in respect of offences ulss. 192 and 199 rlw s. 34 - Order of magistrate taking cognizance against Chairman in complaint case quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 192 and 199 rlw s. 34 - Liability - Vicarious liability - Common intention. Appellant No. 1 is the successor-in-interest of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB} and appellant No. 2 is its Chairman. Respondent No. 1 is an 551 F G H 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R. A incorporated company and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are senior officials of respondent No.1. Respondent No. 1 and MSEB entered into various contracts. Dispute arose between the parties and respondent No. 1 terminated the contract. The dispute was referred to the arbitral tribunal. B The arbitral tribunal passed the final award directing MSEB to pay certain amount to respondent No. 1 as damages. The award also contained certain observations that MSEB had fabricated certain documents as evidence. On the basis thereof, respondent No. 1 to 3 filed c a criminal complaint against the appellants alleging commission of offences under Sections 192 and 199 read with Section 34 IPC. The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons against all the accused named therein. Aggrieved, the appellants filed 0 petition u/s .. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. The High Court dismissed the petition. Therefore, the appellants filed the inst~nt appeal. Partly allowing the· appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1 Wherever by a legal fiction the principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person who is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of an offence is made liable for the same, it has to be specifically provided in the statute concerned. Neither F Section 192 nor Section 199 IPC, incorporate the principle of vicarious liability, and, therefore, it was incumbent on the complainant to specifically aver the role of each of the accused in the complaint. [Para 29) [570-G-H) S.K. Alagh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 5 G SCC 662, referred to. H 1.2. A bare perusal of the complaint shows that the gravamen of the allegation is that a fabricated document containing the offending endorsement was tendered in MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION 553 CO. LTD. v. DATAR SWITCHGEAR LTD. evidence before the arbitral tribunal on behalf of MSEB A by accused No. 6, who was in-charge of 'S' section. It is evident from the complaint that the other accused were named in the complaint because according to the complainant, MSES-accused No. 1 was acting under their control and management. The only averment made B against appellant No. 2 is that appellant No.1, MSEB was acting under the control and managementof appellant No. 2 along with the other, three accused. Appellant No. 2 happened to be the Chairman of MSEB at the relevant time but one cannot draw a presumption that a Chairman c of a company is responsible for all acts committed by or on behalf of the Company. In the entire body of the complaint there is no allegation that appellant No. 2 had personally participated in the arbitration proceedings or was monitoring them in his capacity as the Chairman of D MS.EB and it was at his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.