VIJAY KHANNA Vs. JUMBO ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Vijay Khanna, petitioner, challenges proceedings in complaint case No. 311-0, filed by Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1 herein, for alleged offences under Sections 42014651468 and 471 Indian Penal Code . against the petitioner, and pending in the Court below, as well as the order made by the Court below, on June 4, 1983. by which the court issued the process against the petitioner. By the said order the Court also directed that an intimation be sent about the pendency of the case to the Passport Officer concerned, informing the said officer that the presence of the petitioner was required in the Court in connection with the case.

(2.) According to the complaint, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-I to the petition, Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., the respondent, carries on business in London in Video Cassettes and other electronics goods, and Pranab Kumar Banerjee, though whom the complaint is filed, is the company's repre sentative at New Delhi, who functions under a senior officer of the. Company, Vinod Bajaj, from A-464, Defence Colony, in New Delhi. The Company has a telephone no. 611404 at the said premises. It is alleged that various communications between the company and the petitioner took 'place "from A-464, Defence Colony. New Delhi." It is alleged that in the last week of August, 1982, petitioner-accused got in touch with Vinod Bajaj on telephone from London at the above number and told him that he was "Managing Director of Cammtex Ltd." and wanted to purchase from the respondent a large-quantity of blank video cassettes worth 100,000 against two postdated cheques of 50,000 each and that the goods were intended to be exported to India and the cheques would be encashed on due dates. It is further alleged that the petitioner requested him to accept his proposal and help him getting the video cassettes representing that he was "a man of lakhs and he should not have any anxiety about the payment and encashment of cheques". According to the complaint, "Vinod Bajaj accepted and believed the representation of the accused. Consequently, Vinod Bajaj informed Mr. Gehani in London that the accused wanteu to purchase a large quantity of blank video cassettes worth , 1,00,000 against two post-dated cheques of , 50,000 tach. Vinod Bajaj further informed Gehani that he has accepted the same." It .is further alleged that the petitioner "developed friendship with Mr. Gehani, Company Secretary and General Manager of the Company at London. The accused used to make small purchases from the complainant company since March, 1982. Slowly and gradually, the accused made him (Gehani) believe that the accused is an honest and reliable person and his financial position was sound." According to the complainant on September 8, 1982, "the accused made a represetation to Mr. Gehani that he (petitioner) was a man of lakhs and he was Managing Director of the company Commtex Ltd. and he wants to purchase blank video cassettes worth . 50,000 for export to India. He would give the payment by a post-dated cheques of December 6, 1982", representing "that he had sufficient funds in the bank and when the cheque would be submitted to the Bank the said cheque would be be encashed." A further representation is said to have been made by the petitioner that "he would get the export certificate of the goods from the shipping company so that the Value Added Tax should not be imposed on the complainant." It is alleged that Gehani "acted upon the said false representation of the accused and received a cheque dated 6th December. 1982 for 50,000 and delivered the goods to the accused." The goods are said to have been delivered to the petitioner on September 8, 15, 20 and 21, 1982, and it is alleged that when the petitioner took delivery of the "goods on September 20, 1982, he gave another post-dated cheque for 10th December, 1982 for . 50,000" with a further assurance "that the accused has funds in the Bank and that the cheque would be honoured and payment would be made to the complainant when the cheque would be presented for encashment." It is alleged that the accused "deceived" the complainant and "fraudulently and dishonestly induced Mr. Gehani so deceived to deliver the goods" and the accused "cheated the complainant by dishonestly inducing the complainant to deliver the goods to him". It is alleged that when asked to give the certificate of shipment as evidence of export of goods to India, petitioner kept on avoiding and ultimately gave 7 invoices containing certificates of shipment on November 23, 1982. The invoices were prepared by the accused in the name of 7 different persons with New Delhi addresses, one of which is also signed by the accused petitioner. According to the complainant, enquiries with regard to the invoices revealed to "the shock and dismay" of the respondent that all the 7 invoices were "forged and fabricated documents" and the respondent came to know that there was no company by the name Gammtex Ltd." and that he (petitioner) was not the managing director of the said company". This, it is alleged, aroused the suspicion of the respondent and when the respondent tried to get in touch with the petitioner at his London office and residence, the respondent was told that the petitioner had "left London on 24-11-82 bag and baggage with his family for Delhi, without informing the complainant". According to the complainant, the respondent was able to contract the accused on telephone from London at New Delhi on 30-11-82 and the "accused assured the complainant that he has sufficient funds in the bank and that cheques would be honoured on the due dates", It is further alleged that the petitioner told the respondent with reference to the invoices that "he was in great difficulty and. therefore, he sent these invoices to the complainant", implying thereby that they were not genuine. It is further alleged that on Deccemebr 3, 1982, petitioner telephoned from Delhi and told the complainant "that he would send proper invoices with proper shipping certificates to the complainant. As regards the payment, the accused once again gave an assurance to the complainant that he has sufficient funds in the bank and that cheques would be honoured." It is alleged that both the cheques when presented were dishonoured in spite of the assurance given by the petitioner to the contrary. It is alleged that the dishonouring of the cheques "was not accidental but it was intentional. It was a consequence expected by the accused as the accused had no funds in the Bank. This happened in spite of the fact that he went or giving assurances from time to time that the accused has sufficient funds in the Bank and both the cheques would behonoured". The complainant proceeds to allege that enquiries revealed that the petitioner never exported the goods to India and the complainant believes that the "accused sold the goods in the local market and took the money and appropriated the same and came to Delhi." It is alleged that the accused cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 16 lakhs and no part of the amount had been received so far. It is alleged that "the accused had dishonest intention right from inception and had intent to cheat the complainant and caused a wrongful loss to them and wrongful gain to him, the accused did all this. The complainant would not have delivered the goods but for the inducement that the delivery was being effected against postdated cheques with the assurance that the same would be honoured on presentation on due dates." It is alleged that the representations were made by the accused to the complainant from Delhi through telephone and therefore, the Delhi Court has jurisdiction. It is further alleged that as far as an Indian citizen is concerned, he would be deemed to have committed an offence in India even if he committed the offence outside the limits of Indian territory, by virtue of Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Penal Code and that by virtue of Section 182(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Delhi Court would have jurisdiction because deception was practised by tslecommunication messages "from Delhi to the complainant at London." According to the complainant, Delhi Court would also have jurisdiction "because serious consequences have ensued within this jurisdiction". It is thus alleged that the accused committed forgery and used forged documents for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed offences under Sections 420/465/468 and 471, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Alongwith the complainant, the respondent enclosed a list of 12 witnesses, including the aforesaid 7 persons, in whose name the invoices were prepared, and 3 documents consisting of Vinod Bajaj's letter of August 30, 1982, addressed to Gehani, another letter of October 4, 1982, as above, and a copy of the resolution of the company authorising P. K. Benerjee to institute criminal and other cases against the accused. The respondent also enclosed with the complaint photo copies of 7 invoices, photo copies of the two cheques and of the intimation from the Banks with regard to their dishonour, as well as photo copies of 4 invoices issued by the respondent in respect of the supply of the goods to the petitioner, forming subject matter of the complaint.