RAVI S. KRISHNA Vs. STATE BY CBI/ACB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOLLOWING the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge being dismissed by the trial Court, accused No. 1 has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) THE facts in brief necessary for the purpose of this order are that, one Kaveri Ranganathan, Additional General Manager of Aircraft Division, HAL, Bangalore, filed a complaint alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of IPC and also under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the complaint allegations in short were that this petitioner acted as an agent of the HAL and thereby was responsible for huge loss occasioned to the HAL on account of the quotations which were received from various suppliers was found, to be at higher price and the petitioner, it is alleged in the complaint, mislead the suppliers stating that he is the agent of HAL and received the quotations from the suppliers and then fabricated the quotations and finally, they were sent to HAL as if quotations were received from the suppliers themselves.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel Sri. Padmanabha Mahale for the petitioner at the outset, contended that the very document produced by the CBI along with, the charge sheet would go to show that the dispute is mainly one of civil nature and this is also very clear from the very policy that is invoked in respect of the purchase of various materials and referring to one such document, it, is argued that even as per the circulation maintained by the HAL itself, the contractual, matter between the HAL and for the foreign suppliers is purely civil in nature and any infringement would entitle civil consequences upon the foreign suppliers who breach their contractual obligations. Referring to clause 18 of the internal policy of the HAL, it is submitted that HAL has the right to terminate the contract and even can recover any commission fee paid by the foreign suppliers to any agent. In view of the aforesaid nature of the contractual obligation between the parties, the entire matter is one which could be grasped out in a civil Court, but no offence of either under the IPC or under the P.C. Act gets attracted. It is his further submission that the petitioner was not an agent of the HAL, but he was representing the foreign suppliers and there can be no impediment for a foreign supplier to have his own agent to assist the suppliers when the commission is paid by the foreign suppliers to its agent and he is nothing to do with the contractual obligation between the supplier concerned and the HAL. The trial Court, therefore, lost sight of this vital aspect, of the matter and as such, the order of the trial Court refusing to discharge the petitioner is liable to be set aside.