{"id":95905,"date":"2003-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2"},"modified":"2016-07-25T23:37:06","modified_gmt":"2016-07-25T18:07:06","slug":"ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2","title":{"rendered":"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Brijesh Kumar, G.P. Mathur.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  129 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nAjay Mitra\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of M.P. & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/01\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nS. Rajendra Babu, Brijesh Kumar &  G.P. Mathur.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.914 of 2002)<\/p>\n
With Crl. Appeal Nos.130-132 of 2003 (Arising out of S.L.P.
\n(Crl.) Nos.1710-1712 of 2002)<\/p>\n
Mathur, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals by special leave are directed against the
\njudgment and order dated January 16, 2002 of High Court of
\nMadhya Pradesh, by which three Petitions filed by the appellants
\nunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tM\/s Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India Private Ltd.
\nentered into three identical Bottling Agreements with the
\ncomplainant, Sanjiva Bottling Company Private Limited on March
\n1, 1996 pursuant to a Master Trademark License entered into by
\nassociate companies of Cadbury Schweppes plc. United Kingdom
\nand Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India Private Limited.\t  In
\nterms of these three agreements, M\/s Sanjiva Bottling Company
\nwas authorised to manufacture and sell certain specified beverages
\nunder specified trademarks owned by Cadbury Schweppes plc.
\nU.K. or its associate companies.   The agreements contained
\nidentical clauses with regard to their respective terms and
\nconditions and provided that they shall continue for an initial term
\nof five years and for further successive period of five years, unless
\nterminated by either party by giving to the other not less than 12
\ncalendar months notice in writing to terminate the agreement.\tOn
\nJuly 29, 1999, Atlantic Industries (a wholly owned indirect
\nsubsidiary of The Coca-Cola Export Corporation, USA) purchased
\nabout 3500 trademarks in 155 countries from Cadbury Schweppes
\nplc., upon which the bottling agreements between Cadbury
\nSchweppes Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. and Sanjiva Bottling
\nCompany were duly assigned to Atlantic Industries and an
\ninformation regarding the same was given to Sanjiva Bottling
\nCompany in writing.   On February 14, 2000, Atlantic Industries
\ngave notice in writing to the complainant, Sanjiva Bottling
\nCompany that the bottling agreements shall not be renewed after
\ntheir expiry on February 28, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
 Sanjiva Bottling Company through its Director, Rajiv Mehta
\nfiled a criminal complaint against 11 accused including the
\nappellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal
\non July 24, 2000 for their prosecution under Section 420 read with
\nSection 511 IPC.  The accused no.1 arrayed in the complaint is
\nCadbury Schweppes Beverages  India  Pvt.  Ltd.\t(A-1) and
\naccused nos.2 to 5 are Chairman, Managing Director and Finance
\nDirector etc. of the said Company.    Besides them, Coca Cola
\nIndia (A-6), Alex Von Behr, President and Chief Executive Officer
\n(A-7).\tNitin Dalvi, Vice-President, Strategic Business, Planning
\nand Information Services (A-8) and Samip Shah, Vice-President,
\nBusiness Development of Coca Cola India, (A-8) Ajay Mitra,
\nRegional Operational Director, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages
\nPvt. Ltd. (A-10) and Steve M. Whaley, Vice-President and General
\nTax Counsel, Atlantic Industries (A-11) have been arrayed as
\naccused nos. 6 to 11.\tThe case set up in the complaint is that the
\ncomplainant is engaged in the business of bottling soft drinks since
\n1983 at Bhopal. The complainant was approached by A-1 in 1995
\nto discontinue its competing brand ‘Sprint’ and a Memorandum of
\nUnderstanding was signed on October 9, 1995.  Thereafter, an
\nagreement was entered into between the complainant and A-1 on
\nMarch 1, 1996 by which the complainant became one of the
\nbottlers of A-1, made investments in the bottling plant and also
\npromoted the sales of A-1 in its area.\t By a letter dated July 29,
\n1999, A-1 informed the complainant that the brands Schweppes,
\nCrush and Canada Dry and associated brands in India would be
\nacquired by a member of the Coca Cola group of companies.   A-1
\nhad 19 bottlers in the year 1997 but Coca Cola India (A-6) had
\nreduced them to 7 and is installing its own bottling plants in
\ndifferent places.   The case of the complainant further is that by the
\nletter dated February 14, 2000, A-6 informed the complainant that
\nthey would not renew the agreements on their expiry on February
\n28, 2001.    In paras 47 and 48 of the complaint, it is alleged that
\nA-6 is adopting all sorts of unfair trade practices and that it has
\nmade wrongful gain of over Rs.100 crores.   In para 50, it is
\nalleged that A-1 and A-6 have not replied properly to the letters of
\nthe complainant and the accused have, therefore, cheated the
\ncomplainant by making false representation.
\n\tThe learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed
\npassed an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.  on July 27, 2000
\ndirecting the police to\t investigate the offence as the same was
\ncognizable offence.  The police thereafter submitted a report on
\nOctober 31, 2000 which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“After the entire inquiry it appears that the
\nCadbury Schweppes Company and Coca Cola
\nCompany have violated the terms and conditions of
\nBusiness Agreement, as a result, the complainant has
\nsuffered financial loss.   The complainant was kept in
\ndarkness and supplied confusing information,
\nconsequently, Complainant suffered economic loss.
\nPrima facie a case of business competition and violation
\nof Agreements is made out and the complainant is
\nadvised to approach the Civil Court.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter consideration of the report the learned Magistrate was
\nof the opinion that the police had not\tsubmitted the same  in
\naccordance with Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and also in the proforma
\nprescribed in the Rules framed by the State Government as the
\nsame had been submitted on plain paper.\t  The SHO, PS
\nGovindpura was accordingly directed on November 16, 2000 to
\nsubmit a report in the prescribed proforma.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn January 11, 2001, the Police submitted a report that on
\nthe basis of the complaint, Case Crime No.5 of 2001, Case Crime
\nNo.13 of 2001  and Case Crime No.18 of 2001 has been registered
\nunder Section 420, 120-B, 34 IPC. On the same date, the learned
\nMagistrate passed an order that the Police had registered the
\noffence and investigation is being carried on and, therefore, the
\ncomplainant should make available Hindi translation of the
\ndocuments and fixed January 30, 2001 as the next date.
\nThereafter, the appellants filed three Criminal Miscellaneous
\nPetitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court for
\nquashing of the FIR and the proceedings of the case before the
\nlearned Magistrate.   After hearing the parties, the High Court held
\nthat the investigation had not yet commenced in connection with
\nthe FIRs which had been registered at the Police Station and,
\ntherefore, the Petitions were pre-mature and accordingly all the
\nthree Petitions were rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the appellants
\nhas submitted that M\/s Cadbury Schweppes Beverages  India  Pvt.
\nLtd.  (A-1) had entered into bottling agreements with the
\ncomplainant Sanjiva Bottling Company on March 1, 1996 and the
\nsaid agreements were to continue for a term of five years.  It also
\ncontained a clause that either party could terminate the agreement
\nat the end of initial term by giving to the other side not less than 12
\ncalendar months notice in writing.  Subsequent to the execution of
\nthe agreement, Atlantic Industries (a wholly owned indirect
\nsubsidiary of The Coca-Cola Export Corporation, USA) purchased
\nthe trademarks from Cadbury Schweppes plc. on July 29, 1999,
\nupon which the bottling agreements between the complainant,
\nSanjiva Bottling Company were duly assigned to Atlantic
\nIndustries and information regarding the same was also given to
\nthe complainant.  Atlantic Industries thereafter gave notice to the
\ncomplainant on February 14, 2000 not to renew the bottling
\nagreements which were to expire on February 28, 2001 and the
\nagreements with the complainant came to end on the said date.
\nThe learned counsel has further submitted that there  is absolutely
\nno allegation in the complaint that the appellants (A-7 to A-11) had
\nat any time made any kind of mis-representation to the
\ncomplainant or had asked it to do or omit to do anything and as
\nsuch no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against them.
\nIt has thus been urged that the allegations made in the complaint,
\neven if accepted at their face value, do not disclose commission of
\nany offence by the appellants and, therefore, the proceedings of the
\ncomplaint case and also the FIRs lodged against the appellants are
\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Advocate General for the State of Madhya
\nPradesh has submitted that as per the order of the learned
\nMagistrate dated July 27, 2000, the Police had submitted a report
\nthat prima facie it was a case of violation of agreement for which
\nthe complainant could seek relief from the Civil Court.\t  However,
\nin view of subsequent order passed by the learned Magistrate on
\nNovember 16, 2000 a case had been registered at the Police Station
\nand the matter was being investigated.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
\ncomplainant has submitted that the allegations made in the
\ncomplaint disclose commission of an offence under Section 420
\nIPC by the accused persons and a case has been registered at the
\nPolice Station and investigation is being carried out.\t Learned
\ncounsel has further submitted that the High Court rightly took the
\nview that the Petitions filed by the appellants for quashing of the
\nproceedings were pre-mature and the said order does not suffer
\nfrom any error of law.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have given our careful consideration to the submissions
\nmade by learned counsel for the parties.   It may be stated at the
\nvery outset that the main allegation made in the complaint is
\nagainst\t M\/s  Cadbury  Schweppes  Beverages  India  Pvt.  Ltd.
\n(A-1).\t It is stated in para 5 of the complaint that the Technical
\nDirectors of A-1 approached the complainant and a Memorandum
\nof Understanding was signed on October 9, 1995 and the
\ncomplainant was asked to discontinue competing brand ‘Sprint’
\nwithin six months of the introduction of ‘Canada Dry’ and it was
\nalso asked to carry out certain jobs at its bottling plant.   The
\ncomplainant thereafter modernised its bottling plant as per the
\nrequirement and satisfaction of A-1.   Thereafter, the bottling
\nagreements were executed between the complainant and A-1 on
\nMarch 1, 1996.\t  Coca Cola India (A-6) came into picture for the
\nfirst time when Atlantic Industries (a wholly owned indirect
\nsubsidiary of The Coca-Cola Export Corporation, USA) purchased
\n3500 trademarks in 155 countries from Cadbury Schweppes plc. on
\nJuly 29, 1999, upon which the bottling agreements between A-1
\nand the complainant was assigned to Atlantic Industries.   A-1 also
\ninformed the complainant in writing on July 29, 1999 that the
\nbrands Schweppes, Crush and Canada Dry and associated brands
\nin India will be acquired by a Member of the Coca Cola Group of
\nCompanies and the bottling agreements will be assigned to
\nAtlantic Industries.\tClause 19 of the Agreement which was
\nexecuted between the complainant and A-1 on March 1, 1996
\nreads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“This Agreement shall come into operation on the
\nEffective Date and subject to the terms herein contained
\nshall continue for a term of 5 (five) years therefrom (the
\n“Initial Term”)\t and thereafter provided that the
\nCompany has complied with the conditions set out
\nbelow shall continue in force for further successive
\nperiods of 5 (five) years unless and until terminated by
\neither party giving to the other not less than twelve
\ncalendar months notice in writing to terminate the same
\nexpiring at the end of the Initial Term or any such
\nsubsequent period, the said conditions being :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tthat the Company has complied with its
\nobligations during (as the case may be) the Initial
\nTerm or the relevant subsequent period (including
\nwithout limitation its obligations pursuant to Sub-
\nclause 7.1) and<\/p>\n
(ii)\tprior agreement of the parties in writing on the
\nBase Plan to come into effect at the start of such
\nsubsequent period and as to the levels of Annual
\nMinimum Aggregate Sales which shall apply
\nduring such subsequent period.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThereafter on February 14, 2000 a notice was given jointly by
\nAtlantic Industries, Canada Dry Corporation Limited and Cadbury
\nSchweppes Beverages Ltd. to the complainant, Sanjiva Bottling
\nCompany and it reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“We refer to Agreements (to include any addenda
\nentered into subsequently) entered into between
\nyourselves (“the Company”) in relation to the
\nproduction, sale and distribution of “Crush”, “Canada
\nDry”, “Schweppes”, and “Sport Cola” Products with an
\nEffective Date of 01 March 1996 (“called the
\nAgreement”).   All defined terms used in the Agreement
\nshall have the same meaning prescribed in this letter,
\nsave as expressly stated otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
Please take this letter as the required 12 months notice,
\npursuant to clause 19 of our intention not to renew this
\nAgreement on expiry on 28 February 2001 (“the Expiry
\nDate”).\t  We would however, require that you continue
\nto fully carry out all obligations under the terms of your
\nAgreement until the Expiry Date.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe agreements executed between the complainant and A-1
\non March 1, 1996 were for a period of five years.   Though the
\nsame could continue for a further successive period of five years,
\nbut either party to the agreement had a right to terminate the same
\nexpiring at the end of the initial term by giving not less than 12
\ncalendar months notice in writing.   The initial period of five years
\nwould have come to an end on February 28, 2001 but on February
\n14, 2000, notice was given to the complainant that the said
\nagreements would not be renewed after expiry of the initial period
\ni.e. after February 28, 2001.\tEven when the agreements were
\nexecuted in March, 1996, the complainant was fully aware that the
\nsame may not be renewed further after expiry of the initial term of
\nfive years.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to the allegations made in the complaint, it was
\nthe Technical Directors of A-1 who had approached the
\ncomplainant and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed on
\nOctober 9, 1995.    The modernisation of the bottling plant was
\ndone by the complainant as per the requirement and satisfaction of
\nA-1 and thereafter the agreements were executed between them
\n(Complainant and A-1) on March 1, 1996 in pursuance whereof
\nthe complainant claims to have spent considerable amount of
\nmoney in improvement of the bottling plant.    There is no
\nallegation in the complaint that A-6 to A-11 or anyone on their
\nbehalf ever met the complainant or asked it to invest any money or
\nto do anything for improvement of  the bottling plant.\t  In fact
\nthere is absolutely no reference to A-6 to A-11 in the complaint
\nexcept that A-6 is installing its own bottling plants and that A-6
\ngave notice to the complainant not to renew the agreements after
\nexpiry of the initial term.  In paras 33 and 34 of the complaint, the
\nentire allegations are made against A-1 and it is said that A-1 was
\nactuated by dishonest intention to cheat the complainant and that
\nA-1 has committed the offence of cheating.   In para 47 of the
\ncomplaint it has been alleged that A-6 is adopting all sorts of unfair
\ntrade practices.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 420 IPC says that “Whoever cheats and thereby
\ndishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to
\nany person  shall be punished with imprisonment ”
\nCheating has been defined in Section 415 IPC and it says that
\n“Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly
\ninduces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any
\nperson, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
\nintentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do
\nanything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
\ndeceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
\ndamage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
\nproperty, is said to “cheat”.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of
\ncheating.   In other words ‘mens rea’ on the part of the accused
\nmust be established before he can be convicted of an offence of
\ncheating.  (See Jeswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. The State of
\nBombay\tAIR<\/a> 1956 SC 575).   In Mahadeo Prasad v. State of
\nWest Bengal AIR<\/a> 1954 SC 724, it was held as follows :
\n\t“Where the charge against the accused is under
\nS.420 in that he induced the complainant to part with
\nhis goods, on the understanding that the accused would
\npay for the same on delivery but did not pay, if the
\naccused had at the time he promised to pay cash against
\ndelivery an intention to do so, the fact that he did not
\npay would not convert the transaction into one of
\ncheating.  But if on the other hand he had no intention
\nwhatsoever to pay but merely said that he would do so
\nin order to induce the complainant to part with the
\ngoods then a case of cheating would be established.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha & Ors.
\nAIR<\/a> 1974 SC 301 it was held that unless the complaint showed
\nthat the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time
\nthe complainant parted with the money it would not amount to an
\noffence under Section 420 IPC and it may only amount to breach
\nof contract.   In G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors.<\/a> 2000 (3) SCC
\n693, it was reiterated that guilty intention is an essential ingredient
\nof the offence of cheating and, therefore, to secure conviction
\n‘mens rea’ on the part of the accused must be established.   It has
\nbeen further held that in order to constitute the offence of cheating
\nthe intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the
\ninducement was offered.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the present appellants are concerned, they came into
\npicture much later in July 1999, when various trademarks and
\nbrands of A-1 were purchased by A-6.   The appellants were not at
\nall in picture at the time when the complainant claims to have spent
\nmoney in improvement of its bottling plant on the basis of the
\nagreement executed with Cadbury Schweppes Beverages  India
\nPvt.  Ltd.  (A-1).    Since the appellants were not in picture at all at
\nthe time when the complainant alleges to have spent money in
\nimproving the bottling plant, neither any guilty intention can be
\nattributed to them nor there can possibly be any intention on their
\npart to deceive the complainant.  No offence of cheating can,
\ntherefore, be said to have been committed by the appellants on
\naccount of the fact that a notice was given to the complainant that
\nthe bottling agreements will not be renewed any further after
\nexpiry of the initial term.   Thus, even if the allegations made in the
\ncomplaint are accepted to be absolutely true and correct, the
\nappellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of
\ncheating as provided in Section 420 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court has held that the Petitions filed by the
\nappellants for quashing the complaint and the FIRs registered
\nagainst them are pre-mature.   The question which arises is that
\nwhere the complaint or the FIR does not disclose commission of a
\ncognizable offence, whether the same can be quashed at the initial
\nstage ?\t  This question was examined by this Court in State of West
\nBengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. AIR<\/a> 1982 SC 949
\nand it was held that the First Information Report which does not
\nallege or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal
\nprovision are prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or
\nconstitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. It is surely
\nnot within the province of the police to investigate into a Report
\n(FIR) which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable
\noffence and the Code does not impose upon them the duty of
\ninquiry in such cases.\tIt was further held that an investigation can
\nbe quashed if  no cognizable offence is disclosed by the FIR.  The
\nsame question has been considered in State of Haryana & Ors. v.
\nCh. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR<\/a> 1992 SC 604 and after considering all
\nthe earlier decisions, the category of cases, in which the Court can
\nexercise its extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution or the inherent power under Section 482  Cr.P.C.
\neither to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the
\nends of justice, were sumarised in para 108 of the Report and sub-
\nparas 1 to 3 thereof are being reproduced hereinbelow :
\n“1.\tWhere the allegations made in the First Information
\nReport or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
\nface value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
\nfacie constitute any offence or make out a case against
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWhere the allegations in the First Information Report
\nand other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do
\nnot disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
\ninvestigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
\nthe Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
\nthe purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tWhere the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
\nor complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
\nsame do not disclose the commission of any offence and
\nmake out a case against the accused.”\n<\/p>\n
\t   As mentioned earlier, the allegations made in the complaint,
\neven if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
\nentirety, do not constitute any offence as against the appellants.
\nTherefore, the complaint filed by the respondent and the FIRs
\nregistered in pursuance thereof are liable to be quashed.  Trisuns
\nChemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.<\/a> 1999(8) SCC 686
\ncited by learned counsel for the complainant is clearly
\ndistinguishable as in the said case the allegation in the complaint
\nwas that the complainant had paid in advance a price higher than
\nthe market price for purchasing “toasted soyabean extracts” but the
\naccused sent the commodity which was of most inferior and
\nsubstandard quality due to which the complainant suffered a loss of
\nRs.17 lakhs.  In view of the allegations made in the complaint, the
\nmatter required investigation and the proceedings could not have
\nbeen quashed on the ground that the dispute was of a civil nature.
\n\tIn the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
\njudgment and order dated January 16, 2002 of the High Court is set
\naside and the complaint filed by the Respondent no.2 and the FIRs
\nregistered in pursuance thereof as Case Crime Nos.5 of 2001, 13 of
\n2001 and 18 of 2001, as against the appellants, are quashed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003 Author: Mathur Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Brijesh Kumar, G.P. Mathur. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 129 of 2003 PETITIONER: Ajay Mitra RESPONDENT: State of M.P. & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/01\/2003 BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu, Brijesh Kumar & G.P. Mathur. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAjay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-25T18:07:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T18:07:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2\"},\"wordCount\":3588,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2\",\"name\":\"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T18:07:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-25T18:07:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003","datePublished":"2003-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T18:07:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2"},"wordCount":3588,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2","name":"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T18:07:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-mitra-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-28-january-2003-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajay Mitra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 28 January, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95905","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=95905"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95905\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}