Y.S. SHAH Vs. G. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above petition is filed under Section 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, II -menite 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 specification, price, delivery, payment schedule and other terms and conditions of guarantee clause. The price quoted therein was Rs. l1,30,000/ -. 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 Sections 415, 417 and 420 IPC.

(3.) THE above petition is filed contending that the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued the process in the absence of sufficient materials placed before it. Since no document or material evidence had been placed prima facie to satisfy the requirements of law, the complaint is taken on file. The learned Magistrate has not considered the fact that the equipment was accepted by the Respondent/complainant and the same was erected as early as during first week of July 2001 and it was found working and only on 15.11.2001, the defect was noticed and all possible steps were taken to rectify the said defect and criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the accused in the case of this nature.