VINOD GOEL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the prosecution launched in C.C. No.23679/2011 on the file of the VII Additional C.M.M., Bangalore.

(2.) VINOD Goel- the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3944/2012 is arraigned as Accused No.1, while Sameer Goel, petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4009/2012 is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the charge sheet filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Special Enquiries, N.T. Pet, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. 120(B) of IPC.

(3.) IN the complaint, it was inter alia alleged that Accused No.1 is the registered company of which Accused No.2 is the Chairman and Managing Director and he primarily dealt with the complainant's representatives in respect of entire transaction, which is the subject matter of the complaint; that during September 2009, the complainant was desirous of purchasing iron ore lump with FE 62% and Iron Ore (Fine) with FE 61.5% and for that purpose, the complainant authorized its representatives for search in the Indian Market to find-out as to who are the right suppliers/sellers to procure large quantities of goods of required specification, as the complainant was required to be traded in the International Market. The representatives of the complainant-Company met Accused No.2 (Vinod Goel) and several other persons including Sameer Goel (Accused No.2 in the charge sheet); that Accused No.2 represented that he is the Proprietor of Accused Nos. 3 and 4, which owned mines in the State of Karnataka and Accused No.3 has a mining lease, whereas Accused No.4 also owned mines and therefore, they would be in a position to supply the required quantity of Iron Ore in both qualities and as per specifications; that after several meetings, the offer by Accused No.2 on behalf of Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 was accepted by the complainant-Company and in that regard two formal written contracts were entered into between the complainant-Company and Accused No.1-Company on 31.10.2009 bearing Reference Nos. IOL/62/09 and IOF/63/090, whereunder, the accused agreed to supply Hematite Iron Ore (Lump) of 3 x 40,000 M.T. (+.00 10% at the complainant's option) and Hematite Iron Ore (Fine) of 3 x 40,000 M.T. (+.00 10% at the complainant's option); that even prior to entering into such two contracts on 31.10.2009, the complainant-company was already in serious negotiations with M/s. Pakistan Steel Mill, Karachi, Pakistan, for sale of the said goods to be purchased from Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the said fact was also disclosed by the complainant-company to Accused Nos.1 to 4 through various correspondences between them; that in that regard, the complainant also entered into two separate contracts with Pakistan Steel Mill on 26.10.2009; that the fact of goods agreed to be purchased from the accused were intended to be supplied to M/s.Pakistan Steel Mill were also incorporated in both the contracts entered into between the complainant-company and Accused Nos. 1 to 4; that the contract between the complainant-company and the accused contained the specifications as to the quality of the goods to be supplied and also clauses regarding the payment to be made; that the entire cargo falling under both the contracts were to be shipped in five shipments totally as 7 per clause (2) of the respective contracts consisting of 40000 MTs ( +.00 10% ); that the contracts also contained the dates of the shipments; that however, the accused did not adhere to the dates of shipments, instead, went on demanding the payments contrary to the terms of the payment under the agreements; that nevertheless, the complainant paid the amounts as demanded by the accused since the complainant was under an obligation to supply Iron Ore to M/s. Pakistan Steel Mill; that as per the terms of the agreement, at the time of shipment, the accused were required to provide all the necessary documents including the quality certificate in respect of the goods so shipped; that there was inordinate delay in shipment of the cargo, however, the accused delayed in sending the necessary documents including the quality certificate regarding the chemical composition; that on 10.12.2009, the accused sent a copy of the quality analysis certificate by e-mail dated 09.12.2009 issued by M/s.SGS India Private Limited and in the said certificate, the date of commencement of loading operation was stated to be 23.11.2009 and the date of completion was said to be 07.12.2009, and the percentage of Fe had been shown as 58.51% and Si02 as 5.14%; that thereafter, the accused-company sent a commercial invoice for making higher claim which was objected to by the complainant and thereafter, revised invoice was sent; that the vessel carrying cargo arrived at the destination of M/s.Pakistan Steel Mill on 09.01.2009 and the sample of cargo was taken by the representative of M/s.Pakistan Steel Mill in order to identify the cargo specifications; that on examination of samples, to the shock of the officers of M/s.Pakistan Steel Mill revealed that the specification of the cargo provided was totally different from the contractual specifications and M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd.'s certificate produced by the accused at the loading port was beyond the rejecting limit for each and every chemical; that on 17.12.2009, the complainant-company received a set of original documents from the accused, which contained the certificate of quality dated 09.12.2009 signed by M/s.SGS India Pvt. Ltd; that however, this quality certificate was totally different from the one received by the complainant-company through e-mail from the accused on 10.12.2009 and thus, the quality certificates sent by the accused when compared with each other apparently found to be bogus; that once again, on 19.12.2009, the complainant received another set of quality reports issued by M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. showing total discrepancy between the quality certificates received earlier; that in the light of the contradictory quality report sent by the accused, the complainant decided to verify the authenticity of the certificates and therefore, carried on correspondences with the M/s.SGS India Pvt Ltd., to verify the same; that even in respect of subsequent shipments also, the quality certificates sent by the accused and the quality test carried out by M/s.SGS India Pvt. Ltd. and Pakistan Steel Mill revealed that the goods so sent were not upto the quality specifications; that as a result of this, M/s. Pakistan Steel Mill rejected the cargo and asked the complainant to lift back the rejected materials from their yard; that the correspondence with M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. revealed that none of the quality certificates received by the complainant-company from accused are not issued by them and they are all forged and fabricated certificates. Thus, the accused by fabricating and forging the quality certificates have cheated the complainant by sending the goods which did not conform to the quality specifications; that since M/s.Pakistan Steel Mill rejected the goods, it resulted in great loss to the complainant-company. Therefore, the complainant contended that the accused named in the complaint have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 476, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) of IPC.