9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of the complaint by the Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. Nature of the dispute: Civil vs. Criminal. 3. Applicability of Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Prosecution of a juristic person (company) for offenses requiring mens rea. 5. Prima facie case and issuance of process. Detailed Analysis: 1. Dismissal of the Complaint by the Metropolitan Magistrate The criminal revision arises from the order dated 2nd September 2003, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint, filed by ICICI Bank Ltd., alleged offenses under Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, stating the dispute was civil in nature and did not find elements of the alleged offenses. 2. Nature of the Dispute: Civil vs. Criminal The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the dispute was civil in nature. However, it is settled law that facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court in Lalmoni Devi v. State of Bihar held that merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. The High Court found that the Magistrate's dismissal on this ground was based on a wrong conception and lacked adequate reasoning. 3. Applicability of Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code The complaint alleged that the accused conspired to cheat the bank by falsely representing that a corporate guarantee was provided. The bank advanced Rs. 50 million based on this representation. When repayment was due, the accused denied executing the guarantee, leading to allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The High Court noted that the allegations in the complaint and the initial testimony of witnesses prima facie disclosed the ingredients of the offenses under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC. 4. Prosecution of a Juristic Person (Company) for Offenses Requiring Mens Rea The opposite party argued that a company, being a juristic person, could not be prosecuted for offenses requiring mens rea, such as those under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. However, the High Court noted that this issue was pending reconsideration by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in ANZ Grindlays Bank Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement. The High Court decided to proceed with the case and leave this issue to be settled at the appropriate stage of the trial. 5. Prima Facie Case and Issuance of Process The High Court emphasized that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate only needs to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. The Court found that the complaint and the initial evidence provided a prima facie case for the offenses alleged. The Magistrate's order lacked detailed reasoning for dismissing the complaint, which was a serious infirmity. The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order and directed the issuance of process to all accused persons, allowing the trial to proceed on its merits. Conclusion The High Court allowed the revisional application, set aside the Magistrate's order dated 2nd September 2003, and directed the issuance of process against all accused persons. The case was remanded to the Magistrate for trial and disposal on merits in accordance with law. The Court emphasized the need for caution and sound reasoning before dismissing a criminal complaint at its inception.
|
