DEVATHAL Vs. DEEPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed challenging the order of dismissal of the private complaint filed by the petitioner on 21.03.2006 in C.C. No.20 of 2005, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's son Sankar, who is the agent for purchasing milk, supplied milk to the respondents' Farm by name M/s. White Field Dairy Farm by purchasing the same from third parties. However, the respondents herein have not settled the amount in time. Hence, the petitioner's son forced to commit suicide. He left the suicide note also. However, the Trial Court, without considering the same, has dismissed the private complaint stating that no prima facie material was produced before the Court to prove the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 418 and 306 IPC.

(3.) RESISTING the same, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents are only the Director and Manager of M/s. White Field Dairy Farm. They have not abetted or instigated the deceased directly to commit suicide. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision reported in : 2008(5) SCC 662 [S.K. Alagh v. State of U.P.] and submitted that once the Company has committed an offence, its director and employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company itself. He would further submit that the Trial Court has correctly held that no document has been filed to show that because of the activities of the respondents, the deceased was forced to commit suicide. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision.