Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1899/2002 5/ 7 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1899 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
==========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==========================================
MANAGING
DIRECTOR CASTROL INDIA LIMITED - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
NIGAM R SHUKLA for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR MUKESH
PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR BD KARIA
for Respondent(s) : 2,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 14/10/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the applicant has prayed to quash
Criminal Case No.1096 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Pardi, District Valsad.
The
facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein
had lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, at Pardi alleging commission of the offence under Section 499
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the present applicant and
another which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.1096 of
2001. The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that the
accused No.1 ? Shri Avesh Ismail Kaizer, Legal Executive,
representing the respondent No.2 Company had filed a complaint on
6th September, 1997 before the GIDC Police Station, Vapi
with the intention of giving false statement and allegations against
the complainant’s involvement in duplication of products like
Castrol CRB Plus, Castrol Dusol, Castrol GTX, Castrol 2 Tek and
Castrol Super TT, which are the products of the accused Company. On
the basis of the information given by the accused No.1, the GIDC,
Vapi Police Station registered First Information Report being Vapi
Police Station I ? C.R. No.126 of 1997 and arrested the
complainant. Not only that, pursuant to the lodging of the
complaint, the same was published in a leading newspaper [Sandesh].
According to the complainant, the contents of the said publication
were defamatory in nature which lowered the reputation and image of
the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that pursuant to
the complaint, he was arrested and subsequently released on bail and
further investigation was made by the police. However, the
complainant had not received any correspondence from the police or
from the Court. Therefore, the complainant inquired about the
matter from Pardi Court and came to know that chargesheet had been
submitted by the police authority after completing the
investigation. Therefore, the complainant obtained certified copy
of the chargesheet and investigation report, and the orders of the
court, which according to the complainant, confirmed that he had
been released and acquitted from the chargesheet and the Court has
passed an order to that effect. According to the complainant, the
cause of action arose from the date of knowledge of the facts, after
obtaining the certified copy of the relevant reports and chargesheet
from the Court.
Pursuant
to the complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi
examined the complainant on oath and vide order dated 7th
March, 2001, directed issuance of summons against the accused
persons, namely, the applicant and another. Being aggrieved, the
applicant has moved the present application for quashing the said
complaint.
Heard
Mr.Nigam Shukla, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.Mukesh
Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 ?
State of Gujarat and Mr.B.D.Karia, learned advocate for respondent
No.2.
The
learned advocate for the applicant has drawn the attention of the
Court to certain factual aspects of the matter. It is submitted
that the First Information Report had been lodged by the accused
No.1, Legal Executive, on 6th September, 1997; the
newspaper reports were published on 7th and 8th
September, 1997; the report under Section 169 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) had been filed by the police on
23rd November, 1997 and the same had been accepted by the
concerned Court on 1st December, 1997, whereas the
present complaint has been lodged on 7th March, 2001. It
is submitted that, in case of an offence committed under Section 499
of the IPC, punishment is provided under Section 500, which provides
for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or
with fine or both. It is submitted that, Section 468(2)(c) of the
Code provides that, in case of an offence which is punishable with
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but not exceeding three
years, cognizance of the complaint can be taken within a period of
three years from the time of commission of the offence. It is
submitted that, in the facts of the present case, the offence can be
stated to have been committed on 6th September, 1997 when
the First Information Report was lodged on or 7th or 8th
September, 1997 when the newspaper reports has been published. It
is submitted that in the circumstances, the complaint which is filed
on 7th March, 2001 is barred by limitation inasmuch as it
is filed beyond the period of three years from the date of the
offence.
It
is further contended that even on merits, insofar as the present
applicant who is the Managing Director of the Company, is concerned,
he is in no way connected with the offence in question inasmuch as
he is not the complainant insofar as the First Information Report
lodged against the respondent No.2 ? complainant is concerned. It
is submitted that in the circumstances, there is absolutely no case
against the present applicant.
In
support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the applicant
has placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Supreme
Court :
[a] Ramesh
Chandra Sinha v. State of Bihar,
(2003)7 SCC 254.
[b] State
of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054.
[c] Srinivas
Pal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC
1729.
[d] Surinder
Mohan Vikal v. Ascharj Lal Chopra, AIR 1978 SC 986.
On
the other hand, Mr.B.D.Karia, learned advocate for the respondent
No.2 ? original complainant has opposed the application. It is
submitted that the limitation would start from the date of knowledge
and that, the respondent No.2 ? complainant came to know about the
report under Section 169 of the Code being accepted by the Court
only subsequently, and therefore, the limitation would start from
that date. In the circumstances, the complaint filed by the
respondent No.2 is well within the period of limitation. It further
submitted that the present petition has been filed by the Managing
Director, M/s Castrol India Ltd., without specifically naming the
person who is the Managing Director. It is submitted that in the
circumstances, the application itself is not maintainable.
This
Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned
advocates for the parties and has perused the record of the case.
Insofar as the contention regarding the application not being
maintainable as having been filed through the Managing Director
without the person being named, is concerned, the same has to be
stated to be rejected. As can be seen from the affidavit
accompanying the petition, the same is affirmed by one Shri Ramesh
Amrutrao Savoor as Managing Director of Castrol India Limited.
Besides, in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2, accused No.2
is not a named person, but is a Managing Director of M/s Castrol
India Limited. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the
applicant in naming the Managing Director as the applicant in the
cause title of the application.
Insofar
as the contention regarding the complaint being barred by limitation
is concerned, the same merits acceptance. Though the learned
advocate for the applicant has cited various decisions of the
Supreme Court, it would not be necessary to refer to each of them in
detail, inasmuch as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Surinder Mohan Vikal v. Ascharj Lal Chopra (Supra)
directly concludes the issue in favour of the applicant herein. In
the said decision, the Court has held that a complaint under Section
500, Penal Code for defamation will be barred if filed three years
after the commission of the offence. Where in a complaint under
Section 500 it is alleged that the defamatory matter was contained
in a complaint under Sections 406/420, Penal Code against the
complainant, the period of limitation for filing complaint under
Section 500, Penal Code would commence from the date of the
complaint under Section 406/420, Penal Code and not from the date
the complainant was finally acquitted of offences under Sections
406/420, Penal Code. In the facts of the present case, the First
Information Report against the complainant had been filed on 6th
September, 1997, hence, the limitation would commence from the said
date. Whereas, the present complaint has been lodged on 7th
March, 2001, which is much beyond the period of limitation of three
years. In the circumstances, the complaint is required to be
quashed as being barred by limitation. This is, therefore, a fit
case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code.
For
the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly,
allowed. The complaint being Criminal Case No.1096 of 2001 pending
in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at
Pardi, District Valsad, is hereby quashed qua the present
petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]
parmar*
Top