{"id":99689,"date":"2010-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-15T12:37:52","modified_gmt":"2016-10-15T07:07:52","slug":"automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D Verma<\/div>\n
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
           Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008\n\n\n                                                - 1 -\n                                                                               REPORTABLE\n                               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1304     OF 2010\n                  [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008]\n\n\n        Automobile Products India Ltd.                                   ....Appellant\n\n               Versus\n\n        Das John Peter & Ors.                                           ....Respondents\n\n\n                                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
        Deepak Verma, J.\n<\/p>\n
        1. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
        2. Under the web of hypertechnicalities justice has taken a<\/p>\n
            back seat as is projected in the order dated 22.11.2006,<\/p>\n
            passed       by     Additional       Chief       Metropolitan      Magistrate,<\/p>\n
            Girgaum,        Mumbai      in    Crl.    Case   No.    38\/S\/2005    filed     by<\/p>\n
            appellant herein against accused                   respondent No.1 and 2,<\/p>\n
            whereby and whereunder the appellant’s criminal complaint<\/p>\n
            filed     under      Section       406    read   with   Section     34   of   the<\/p>\n
            Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as “IPC”] and<\/p>\n
            under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
            referred to as “the Act”) was dismissed. Against the said<\/p>\n
            order      of     dismissal,        the     appellant     herein     filed     an<\/p>\n
            application before the learned Single Judge of the High<\/p>\n
            Court in Criminal Application No. 450 of 2007 seeking<\/p>\n
            leave to file              the    appeal which was also dismissed on
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
            14.7.2008,<\/p>\n
                                                  – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
        giving      rise     to    filing     of      this     appeal     by    the    original<\/p>\n
        complainant.             Unfortunately, the accused have also with<\/p>\n
        vehemence         supported        hypertechnicalities              adopted       by     the<\/p>\n
        aforesaid two courts, to contend that no interference is<\/p>\n
        called      for    in     the    light     of    the    facts    as    found       in   the<\/p>\n
        aforesaid two orders.\n<\/p>\n
        3. Facts shorn of unnecessary details are mentioned herein<\/p>\n
            below:\n<\/p>\n
        4. Appellant is a Company (hereinafter shall be referred to<\/p>\n
            as “the Company”) duly registered under the Act and is<\/p>\n
            carrying       on     business       of     manufacturing         two    and       three<\/p>\n
            wheelers’ automobile products. Mr. V.S. Parthasarthy is<\/p>\n
            the Factory Manager of the Appellant-Company and has been<\/p>\n
            posted in Mumbai.              A resulution has been passed by the<\/p>\n
            Company         on         31.12.2001        to      authorise          Mr.         V.S.<\/p>\n
            Parthasarathy, Factory Manager to represent the company<\/p>\n
            and      to      sign,       verify,         execute        and     deliver          all<\/p>\n
            vakalatnamas,               pleadings,            complaints,           affidavits,<\/p>\n
            declarations,          petitions, written statements, rejoinders,<\/p>\n
            papers, deeds, receipts, assurances etc. in a court of<\/p>\n
            law.      On the same day, he has been duly authorised by<\/p>\n
            virtue of the Power of Attorney executed in his favour by<\/p>\n
            the     Appellant          Company          to     file   and      prosecute         the<\/p>\n
            aforesaid complaint.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
        5. On the complaint having been filed before the Additional<\/p>\n
            Chief      Metropolitan         Magistrate,        the     same was<\/p>\n
                                                  – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
        registered.            The      allegation       in   the     complaint     is     that<\/p>\n
        company is having a flat situated at 17, Carmichael Road<\/p>\n
        (behind         Jaslok         Hospital),    Mumbai.          One    room   near   the<\/p>\n
        garage      (hereinafter          shall     be    referred      as    the   ‘servant<\/p>\n
        quarter’)         is also under the ownership of the company for<\/p>\n
        being used by its servants.                 Even though, the complaint was<\/p>\n
        filed under Section 406 \/ 34 of the IPC as also under<\/p>\n
        Section 630 of the Act, but cognizance was taken by the<\/p>\n
        trial court only under Section 630 of the Act.<\/p>\n
        6. Respondent No. 1 (accused No.1 herein) was working as a<\/p>\n
            caretaker with the Company to look after the flat.                           It is<\/p>\n
            not in dispute              that he has retired from the service of<\/p>\n
            the Company with effect from 6.3.1992.                             The servant<\/p>\n
            quarter was allotted to accused No. 1 by virtue of his<\/p>\n
            service in the company.                 Obviously, after his attaining<\/p>\n
            age of superannuation, he was supposed to have delivered<\/p>\n
            its       peaceful           and      vacant        possession          to     the<\/p>\n
            appellant\/company.             Instead       of   doing    so,    he    gave   its<\/p>\n
            possession to his daughter, accused No.2, and shifted to<\/p>\n
            Ambernath.         As on date, it is accused No. 2, daughter of<\/p>\n
            accused No.1, who is in actual physical possession of the<\/p>\n
            said servant quarter.\n<\/p>\n
        7. It is pertinent to note that a written undertaking is
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
            said to have been tendered by respondent no.1 on 5.1.2000<\/p>\n
            to the effect that he will vacate the servant quarter<\/p>\n
            within one month thereof.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
        8. Since        despite        serving         several    legal     notices     to    the<\/p>\n
            accused, they refused to hand over its peaceful vacant<\/p>\n
            possession to the appellant, it was constrained to file<\/p>\n
            the aforesaid complaint.\n<\/p>\n
        9. Shri V.S. Parthasarthy, appeared as PW-1, and                                deposed<\/p>\n
            before the Court circumstances under which accused No.1<\/p>\n
            was handed over possession of the servant quarter, where<\/p>\n
            he    had    worked        as    caretaker.           After     his    retirement,<\/p>\n
            despite promise made to the Company he has failed to<\/p>\n
            vacate the servant quarter.                    His evidence has been dealt<\/p>\n
            with     extensively            by    the    trial    court     but    it   is    not<\/p>\n
            required to be considered at this stage as Appellant’s<\/p>\n
            Criminal        Complaint            has    been     dismissed    on      technical<\/p>\n
            ground.\n<\/p>\n
        10.Defence of the accused                      in short    was that the complaint<\/p>\n
            as filed by company through Mr. V.S. Parthasarthy is not<\/p>\n
            maintainable         inasmuch          as    the   Power   of    Attorney        dated<\/p>\n
            31.12.2001, said to have been executed in favour of Mr.<\/p>\n
            V.S. Parthasarthy is a fictitious document.                           The services<\/p>\n
            of accused No.1 were never terminated and even after<\/p>\n
            retirement he came to be re-appointed.                           Thus, he has a<\/p>\n
            right to continue in its possession.                             As regards his
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
            undertaking         given     to    the   Chairman    of   the   Company    on<\/p>\n
            5.1.2000, wherein he specifically agreed to vacate the<\/p>\n
            premises on or before 31.1.2000, he contended the same<\/p>\n
            was not tendered voluntarily, meaning thereby the same<\/p>\n
            was<\/p>\n
                                                 – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
        given under coercion, threat, undue influence,                       thus it was<\/p>\n
        not binding.\n<\/p>\n
        11.Learned trial court critically examined the Power of<\/p>\n
            Attorney and came to the conclusion that the same was<\/p>\n
            executed on 31.12.2001, was notarised on 5.6.2001, and<\/p>\n
            the stamp papers were purchased on 18.4.2002, which gives<\/p>\n
            rise      to    suspicion          with   regard     to    genuineness     and<\/p>\n
            correctness of Power of Attorney.                     Ultimately, it held<\/p>\n
            that the said Power of Attorney is a fictitious document.<\/p>\n
            Thus,     on    the    strength      of   it,   complaint    could   not   be<\/p>\n
            filed. As regards resolution of the company passed on<\/p>\n
            31.12.2001 was concerned, it was held that complainant<\/p>\n
            failed to file the same, while he was in the witness box.<\/p>\n
            Admittedly, the company faced financial crisis and has<\/p>\n
            since been closed with effect from 21.1.1993 under the<\/p>\n
            orders of BIFR.\n<\/p>\n
        12.Ultimately,            after    appreciating        oral    and   documentary<\/p>\n
            evidence available on record, the following order came to<\/p>\n
            be passed         by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,<\/p>\n
            Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
                           “The accused No.1 Mr. Das John Peter and
\n                      accused No.2 Ms. Grace Peter are hereby
\n                      acquitted for the offence punishable u\/s.630
\n                      of the Companies Act.”\n<\/p>\n
                           Their   bail   bonds,  if   any,   stands
\n                      cancelled.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        13.    Feeling        aggrieved         thereof,   the    appellant          filed    an<\/p>\n
            Application          before         the   learned     Single Judge of the<\/p>\n
            High<\/p>\n
                                                   – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
        Court seeking leave to file appeal, against the order of<\/p>\n
        acquittal of the accused. Unfortunately, the learned Single<\/p>\n
        Judge did not examine the matter in proper perspective and<\/p>\n
        fell     into     grave        error,    in   refusing    to    grant    leave       and<\/p>\n
        rejected the appellant’s application, for prosecution of<\/p>\n
        the accused under Section 630 of the Act.<\/p>\n
        14.Feeling          aggrieved           thereof,   this        appeal    has     been<\/p>\n
            preferred by the complainant company.<\/p>\n
        15.We have accordingly heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed learned Senior<\/p>\n
            Counsel       for      the     appellant,      Mr.    Sanjay        Kharde       for<\/p>\n
            respondent No.1 and 2 and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, for<\/p>\n
            respondent          No.      3-State      of   Maharashtra          at    length.<\/p>\n
            Perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
        16.At the outset, we inquired from learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
            accused, whether he would be ready and willing to vacate<\/p>\n
            the premises, provided reasonable and sufficient time is<\/p>\n
            granted to them but learned counsel vehemently opposed<\/p>\n
            any such suggestion and contended that the complaint has
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
            rightly been dismissed on technical grounds which went to<\/p>\n
            the root of the matter, therefore no interference is<\/p>\n
            called for.\n<\/p>\n
        17.With an intention to satisfy ourselves with regard to<\/p>\n
            the    correctness,           genuineness     and    authenticity    of     the<\/p>\n
            resolution dated 31.12.2001 passed by appellant company<\/p>\n
            in    favour      of    Mr.    V.S.   Parthasarthy     and    the   Power   of<\/p>\n
            Attorney<\/p>\n
                                                  – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
        of the even date, we requested the appellant to produce the<\/p>\n
        originals for our perusal.                     They have produced the same<\/p>\n
        before      us.    We      have   critically      and   with    microscopic     eye<\/p>\n
        examined the same. After doing so, we do not find either of<\/p>\n
        the      two      documents        can    be    termed     as    fictitious      or<\/p>\n
        manufactured documents so as to oust the appellant from the<\/p>\n
        arena of justice.\n<\/p>\n
        18.No doubt, it is true that Power of Attorney was executed<\/p>\n
            on 31.12.2001, but has been scribed on a stamp paper<\/p>\n
            purchased on 18.4.2002. But it has been notarised on<\/p>\n
            5.6.2002 and not on 5.6.2001 as has been noted by the<\/p>\n
            trial court.               The Rubber stamp seal put by the notary<\/p>\n
            clearly depicts it as 5.6.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        19.Thus, after going through the same, it leaves no shadow<\/p>\n
            of doubt in our mind that the same are genuine and duly<\/p>\n
            authorised Mr. V.S. Parthasarthy to file and prosecute<\/p>\n
            the complaint against the accused.                   We had also passed on
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
            the originals to the learned counsel for the respondent-<\/p>\n
            accused          to      satisfy      himself      but     still,     after     going<\/p>\n
            through the same he persisted in his arguments tooth and<\/p>\n
            nail that the date of Power Attorney in fact is 5.6.2001<\/p>\n
            and not 5.6.2002.                However, we are unable to agree to the<\/p>\n
            argument       as       advanced      by   the    learned     counsel     for    the<\/p>\n
            accused       as      he    is    trying     to    stretch       it    beyond    our<\/p>\n
            comprehension.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
        20.Admittedly, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court<\/p>\n
            have gone into the merits of the matter.                              Thus with an<\/p>\n
            intention to do complete justice to the parties, we have<\/p>\n
            heard the counsel for the parties at length and gone<\/p>\n
            through the merits of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        21.It is not in dispute that accused                           No. 1 was appointed<\/p>\n
            as     a    caretaker            to   look       after     the    flat    of     the<\/p>\n
            appellant\/company at ‘Kamal Mahal’ Co-operative Housing<\/p>\n
            Society Ltd., Carmichael Road, Bombay 400 026 owned and<\/p>\n
            possessed by the Company.                    It is further not in dispute<\/p>\n
            that accused No.             1 had retired from the company w.e.f.<\/p>\n
            6.3.1992.          At      the     time    of     entering       into     service,<\/p>\n
            respondent No. 1 had entered into agreement with the<\/p>\n
            company        on        22.9.1980,        which         specifically      granted<\/p>\n
            permission to the company to revoke the licence, of the<\/p>\n
            servant quarter at any time and to take possession.                               It
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
            is further not in dispute that on 5.1.2000 accused No.1<\/p>\n
            wrote      a     letter     to        the    Chairman     of    the      Company<\/p>\n
            specifically         and   categorically        agreeing       to    vacate    the<\/p>\n
            servant quarter by 31.1.2000. However, he did not deem it<\/p>\n
            fit and proper to honour his own                   commitment rather has<\/p>\n
            defied it on various grounds. To appreciate the arguments<\/p>\n
            as advanced by learned senior counsel Shri Altaf Ahmed<\/p>\n
            for     the    appellant,        it     is    necessary    to       examine    the<\/p>\n
            relevant provisions of the Act under which, the company’s<\/p>\n
            complaint was filed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
        22.Section 630 of the Act reads as under:<\/p>\n
               “630.     Penalty for wrongful                    withholding         of
\n               property property.-     (1)  If                   any officer         or
\n               employee of a company.-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n               (a)       wrongfully obtains                  possession         of   any\n               property of a company; or\n\n               (b)       having   any   such    property in  his\n               possession,    wrongfully     withholds   it   or\n<\/pre>\n
               knowingly applies it to purposes other than those
\n               expressed or directed in the articles         and
\n               authorised by this Act,<\/p>\n
               he shall, on the complaint of the company or any
\n               creditor or contributory thereof, be punishable
\n               with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (2) The Court trying the offence may also order
\n               such officer or employee to deliver      up     or
\n               refund, within a    time to be fixed by the Court,
\n               any such property wrongfully       obtained     or
\n               wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in
\n               default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which
\n               may extend to two years.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        23.A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
            a criminal complaint seeking possession of the servant<\/p>\n
            quarter at the instance of company against the accused<\/p>\n
            was maintainable and in our opinion cognizance thereof<\/p>\n
            was rightly taken by the Magistrate but committed a grave<\/p>\n
            error in rejecting it on technical grounds, instead of<\/p>\n
            deciding it on merits.\n<\/p>\n
        24.Learned counsel for appellant has also placed reliance<\/p>\n
            on Section 621 of the Act, dealing with offences against<\/p>\n
            the Act to be cognizable only on complaint by Registrar,<\/p>\n
            share holder or government.         To appreciate the arguments<\/p>\n
            in<\/p>\n
                                           – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
        this regard, the said Section 621 of the Act is reproduced<\/p>\n
        hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n
                      “621. Offences against Act to be cognizable
\n                 only on complaint by Registrar, shareholder or
\n                 Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (1)No court shall take cognizance of any offence
\n                    against this Act, which is alleged to have been
\n                    committed by any company or any officer
\n                    thereof, except on the complaint in writing of
\n                    the Registrar, or of a shareholder of a
\n                    company, or of a person authorised by the
\n                    Central Government in that behalf:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall
\n                 apply to a prosecution by a company of any of its
\n                 officers:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Provided   further  that   the   court  may   take
\n                 cognizance of offence relating to issue and
\n                 transfer of securities and non-payment of dividend
\n                 on a complaint in writing by a person authorised
\n                 by the Securities Exchange Board of India.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (1A)    Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
               Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (5 of 1898), where
\n               the complainant under sub-section (1) is the
\n               Registrar or a person authorised by the Central
\n               Government,   the  personal   attendance  of   the
\n               complainant before the Court trying the offence
\n               shall not be necessary unless the Court for the
\n               reasons to be recorded in writing requires his
\n               personal attendance at the trial.\n<\/p>\n
               (2)Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any action
\n                  taken by the liquidator of a company in respect
\n                  of any offence alleged to have been committed
\n                  in respect of any of the matters included in
\n                  Part VII (sections 425 to 560) or in any other
\n                  provisions of this Act relating to the winding
\n                  up of the companies.\n<\/p>\n
               (3) A liquidator of a company shall not be deemed
\n               to be an officer of the company, within the
\n               meaning of sub-section (1).”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    -11 –\n<\/p>\n
        25.However,           it       is     not       necessary        to    examine     the<\/p>\n
            applicability of the aforesaid Section 621 of the Act to<\/p>\n
            the     present        case      as    it   appears     to    be    doubtful   to<\/p>\n
            categorise accused No. 1, who was admittedly working as<\/p>\n
            caretaker, as an                officer of the company.            Thus, we deem<\/p>\n
            it fit and proper to leave the said question open at this<\/p>\n
            stage.\n<\/p>\n
        26.We      have      carefully            examined   the     originals      of     the<\/p>\n
            resolution dated 31.12.2001 as also Power of Attorney of<\/p>\n
            the even date executed in favour of Mr. V.S. Parthasarthy<\/p>\n
            and the irresistible conclusion is that the same are<\/p>\n
            genuine and do not come under the cloud of suspicion at<\/p>\n
            all.\n<\/p>\n
        27.That being so, in the light of the admitted position
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
            that accused No. 1 retired in the year 1992 and has also<\/p>\n
            given an undertaking to the Company as far as back as<\/p>\n
            5.1.2000 categorically admitting and agreeing to vacate<\/p>\n
            the premises on or before 31.1.2000, it was incumbent on<\/p>\n
            his part to honour the same.\n<\/p>\n
        28.The letter of the accused No. 1 dated 05.01.2000 is<\/p>\n
            reproduced herein below:-\n<\/p>\n
                            “In regard to the above subject I the
\n                  undersigned would be grateful to you if you
\n                  would give me one month time till January 31st
\n                  2000 to vacate the premises that was given to me
\n                  while I was in service with your esteemed
\n                  organisation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                    Das John Peter<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        29. Even after taking into consideration all the defences<\/p>\n
            taken        by      accused,   their      eviction     from   the   servant<\/p>\n
            quarter<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                – 12 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        is inevitable.            Since he has committed default of his own<\/p>\n
        promise, we have no other choice or option but to direct<\/p>\n
        the accused persons to vacate the premises by or before 1 st<\/p>\n
        October,       2010      and   to       hand   over   its   peaceful     vacant<\/p>\n
        possession         to the Company.\n<\/p>\n
        30.We have done so exercising the powers conferred on us by<\/p>\n
            virtue of provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
            which cast a duty on us to do complete justice between<\/p>\n
            the parties.\n<\/p>\n
        31.It     is    clear      from   the    impugned     orders   that   there   is<\/p>\n
            manifest illegality in the same and have resulted in
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
             palpable injustice to the Appellant\/Company curable at<\/p>\n
             this stage under Article 142 of the Constitution as the<\/p>\n
             aforesaid powers are inherent on this Court as guardian<\/p>\n
             of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
        32.According to us, no useful purpose would be served even<\/p>\n
             if the matter is remitted to Magistrate for trial on<\/p>\n
             merits.      We hold so because equity also does not swing in<\/p>\n
             favour of the accused, who have displayed adamant and<\/p>\n
             dilatory attitude.\n<\/p>\n
        33.From the date of retirement of accused No. 1 till date,<\/p>\n
             more than 18 years have passed by and he has used the<\/p>\n
             servant quarter without having any right to do so. No<\/p>\n
             further      mercy        or   sympathy         can    be     shown    to   such   an<\/p>\n
             accused.\n<\/p>\n
        34.Thus, looking to the matter from all angles we are of<\/p>\n
                                                   – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
        the      considered            opinion        that         the     order     passed     by<\/p>\n
        Metropolitan Magistrate as also by                           the High Court cannot<\/p>\n
        be    sustained        in      law.        Same      are    hereby     set    aside     and<\/p>\n
        quashed.       This      we     have     to    do     to     give     quietus      to the<\/p>\n
        litigation which had commenced long years back.<\/p>\n
        35.Appellant’s complaint filed under section 630 of the Act<\/p>\n
             is hereby allowed and accused is granted time to vacate<\/p>\n
             the servant quarter as mentioned hereinabove on or before<\/p>\n
             1.10.2010       and       to   hand      over    its        peaceful    and   vacant<\/p>\n
             possession to the appellant company. In default thereof
\nCrl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008<\/p>\n
            accused shall have to suffer imprisonment for a term of<\/p>\n
            one year and fine of Rs. 10,000\/-. In default of payment<\/p>\n
            of fine, the accused shall suffer further imprisonment of<\/p>\n
            one month.\n<\/p>\n
        36.We hope and trust at least good sense shall prevail on<\/p>\n
            the accused and instead of running the risk of being sent<\/p>\n
            to jail, they would abide by the first part of the order<\/p>\n
            and do the needful. If the accused persons fail to do so<\/p>\n
            then the appellant shall be entitled to take police help<\/p>\n
            to get our order executed.\n<\/p>\n
        37.Appeal stands allowed accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                           ………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                           [DALVEER BHANDARI]<\/p>\n
       New Delhi.                          ………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
       July 20, 2010                       [DEEPAK VERMA]\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010 Author: D Verma Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008 – 1 – REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2010 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6204 of 2008] […]<\/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-99689","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAutomobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010 - 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\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-15T07:07:52+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-15T07:07:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2898,\"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\\\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-15T07:07:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010 - 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\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-15T07:07:52+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-15T07:07:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010"},"wordCount":2898,"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\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010","name":"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-15T07:07:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-products-india-ltd-vs-das-john-peter-ors-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Automobile Products India Ltd vs Das John Peter & Ors on 20 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/99689","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=99689"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99689\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}