KARAM CHAND THAPER Vs. T G VASANTH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against acquittal.

(2.) THE petitioner was the complainant before the lower Court. He preferred a complaint, under Sec. 420, I.P.C. against the respondent. THE complainant is a firm dealing in papers and the accused is the Managing Director of M/s.Sree Royalaseema Paper Mills Limited who appointed the complainant as the dealer of M/s.Sree Royalaseema Paper Mills Limited. THE complainant had paid more than Rs.one crore as advance to M/s.Sree Royalaseema Paper Mills Limited. But they received supply only to the value of Rs. 36 lakhs. In July, 1989, the General Manager (Marketing) of M/s.Sree Royalaseema Paper Mills, Mr. Kamesan came to the office of the complainant at Madras and represented that they would supply 300 tonnes of paper by August, 1989. This was confirmed by the respondent through telephone and thereby the respondent induced the complainant to part with a further sum of Rs. 40 lakhs. THEreafter, it was known to the complainant that M/s.Sree Royalaseema Paper Mills had already approached B.I.F.R. in July 1989 to declare it as a sick unit. But this fact was concealed by the respondent when he induced the complainant to part with Rs. 40 lakhs.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent argued that since the company has not been added as an accused, the Managing Director alone cannot be an accused. To this, the revision petitioner replied what is complained against the respondent is the offence of cheating which requires a mental element. A corporate body cannot have a mental status. Further, the complaint by the complainant is only against the misrepresentation made dishonestly by the Managing Director who is the respondent herein. THErefore, non-inclusion of the company as an accused does not affect the case of the petitioner. This argument of the counsel for the revision petitioner is acceptable. It is a case of dishonest representation made by the Managing Director and hence, company need not be an accused.