CHELLAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 24. 4. 2000 passed in c. C. No. 4708 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, egmore, Chennai, acquitting the accused A1 to A6 on all charges levelled against them and A7 to A9 under Section 381 I. P. C. This revision is filed by the defacto complainant against the acquittal of the accused A1 to A6 in respect of all the charges, viz. , offences under Sections 120 (B), 408, 381 and 420 I. P. C. and A7 to A9 for the offence under Section 381 I. P. C. on the file of the Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in C. C. No. 4708 of 1995 as per judgment dated 24. 4. 2000.

(2.) AS per the case of prosecution, P. W. 1 R. Chellappan is the sole proprietor of the company Numeric Engineers (hereinafter referred to as P. W. 1 Company), whose main business was to manufacture and supply U. P. S. System (Un-Interrupted Power Supply System), which is an electronic equipment mainly used as power supply for computers and other communication equipments and it was having 32 offices and service centres in various places of India during the year 1993. The accused A-1 to A-9, after completing their Diploma course, joined in the P. W. 1 company as Trainee Engineers during the year 1987 to 1990 and after completion of the training period of one year, they were allotted to various Departments of the Company such as, production, Testing, servicing, Marketing, R & D, etc. and later on, they were entrusted with individual responsibilities of their Department / Branches and the company properties like Secret Designs, PCB Layout, Costlier spares, R & D related materials, Sales documents, etc. , placing them in Chennai, Madurai and Delhi Offices. It is further stated that from February 1993, all the accused had conspired together and committed theft of Electronic Circuits, formulas, costlier components, etc. , from the P. W. 1 Company for their illegal gain and as such, they committed breach of trust and made P. W. 1 company to incur huge loss to the tune of rs. 1. 81 lakhs by way of materials and other losses in the market, which cannot be quantified.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the entrustment of properties of P. W. 1 Company, such as, Secret Designs, PCB Layout, costlier spares, R & D related materials, Sales documents, etc. , and as such, there is nothing to indicate or accept the case of prosecution that the accused committed cheating as alleged, in view of the fact that there have been no entrustment of the properties for attracting offences under Section 408 or 420 I. P. C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the offences under Sections 408 and 381 I. P. C. will not go together.