Y S SHAH MANAGING PARTNER SECUNDERABAD Vs. G SRINIVASAN VICE PRESIDENT WORKS DCW LTD SAHAPURAM THOOTHUKUDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above petition is filed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.137 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant is engaged in production of Caustic Soda, ilmenite among other heavy chemicals which is in need of several equipments including Graphite Heat Exchangers. To meet the demands of the respondent/complainant, the first accused/first petitioner has submitted a quotation dated 15.11.2000 giving technical specifications, price, delivery, payment schedule and other terms and conditions of guarantee clause. THE price quoted therein was Rs.11,30,000. THE respondent has accepted the offer and issued purchase order dated 28.2.2001. Later on the equipment was supplied by the accused/petitioner herein and it was commissioned by the technicians of the first accused in the premises of the complainant's company during first week of July, 2001. On 15.11.2001, a leakage was found in the equipment which was immediately informed to the accused. Though the first accused visited the complainant's company, he was unable to rectify the defects and left the place. Subsequently, the respondent company engaged one Chartered Engineer, who has submitted an inspection report and it is found therein that the poor performance of the equipment was due to the usage of Fibre Reinforced Plastic (hereinafter called as "FRP") instead of graphite in assembling the equipment, which is contrary to the specifications and the drawing given by the accused. Since the machinery was not in terms of the specifications as found out in the drawings and the accused knowing fully well, used FRP with the portion of the equipment which resulted in leakage and with a view to make wrongful gain to the extent of Rs.80,000, has used FRP which is lesser in value and thereby committed the offence under Secs.415, 417 and 420, I.P.C.

(3.) THE entire complaint proceeds on the basis that when the petitioners have offered quotation on 15.11.2000, they have enclosed a separate drawing for the ready reference of the respondent and as per the drawing, a portion of the equipment was viz., where graphite tube meets a plate instead of using graphite, FRP was used and thereby the defect has crept in the equipment.