JAYANTHILAL M MUNOTH Vs. M DURAIRAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in Crl. O. P. No. 21983 of 2004 are the accused 2 to 5 and the petitioner in crl. O. P. No. 15159 of 2004 is the sixth accused in C. C. No. 295 of 2004 on the file of the learned viii Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, launched as against them for the offences under Sections 406 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

(2.) THE averment in brief as found in the private complaint filed by the complainant mr. Durairajan, General Manager of M/s. Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. , under Section 200 of the code of Criminal Procedure is as follows:-The complainant-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and after sale services in the range of kitchen appliances including mixer grinders under the popular brand name of 'preethi'. All the products of the complainant-company meet international quality and safety standards certified by various international certifying bodies. The products of the complainant-company are being exported to various countries.

(3.) THE first accused representing the 8th accused as the Managing Director and the 9th accused as Proprietor, approached the complainant-company in the first week of August 2002 with an intention of obtaining orders to produce jars that are required for the manufacture of various models of 'preethi Mixer Grinders' of the complainant-company. The complainant-company handed over samples and drawings of the stainless steel jars along with the technical specifications required for the manufacture of Jars on 24. 8. 2002. The first accused representing 8th and 9th accused agreed to produce and supply 3000 numbers of jars in two varieties respectively. But the accused delayed the supply of stainless steel jars till 29. 4. 2003. They supplied only a total number of 3350 jars to the complainant-company, out of which 1104 jars were rejected due to non-conformity on the basis of the quality control inspection carried out by the complainant-company. Even as on 25. 7. 2003, the complainant-company sent certain drawings for reference vide letter dated 26. 7. 2003 to the accused, as there was no clarity regarding the production of certain jars by the accused.