SELVAM Vs. RATNA LEATHER CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records of complaint and quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.114 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry as an abuse of process of law.)The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original PETITION to call for the records in C.C.No.114 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry and quash the same.

(2.) THE respondent /complainant filed the case against the petitioner/accused stating that the petitioner herein approached the proprietor/respondent and sought for employment as Manger stating that he had vast experience in the field. THE accused was offered appointment as Manager of the company being promoted and he was instructed to take necessary steps to get the provisional registration and to look after other official works also which are normally done by managerial personnel. THE accused with ulterior motives had obtained the provisional licence for Rathna Leather Company impersonating himself as the proprietor. THE accused obtained the provisional licence on 28.06.1996. When the complainant became aware of the said fact, the accused was confronted but he stated that it was done mistakenly by him for convenience sake to get easily without troubling the proprietor. Thus the accused was required to take necessary steps to get the mistake corrected and accordingly amendments were effected on 06.11.1996 in the provisional licence No,590317648 dated 28.06.1996 changing the name of ownership of M/s. Rathna Leather Co, from P.Selvam to G.Vivekanandan. In the no-objection certificate issued by District Industries Centre, Government of Pondicherry, also such an amendment was carried out on 05.12.1996. THE accused himself had taken necessary steps to effect the amendment, subsequently, the certificate of Registration under Central Sales Tax Act and Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act were also issued in the name of G.Vivekanandan only as proprietor of Rathna Leather Co.

(3.) IT is also alleged by the complainant that the accused by writing the letter dated 05.06.1997 and addressing it to so many persons and authorities had defamed the complainant by imputing dishonest intention and unlawful acts to the complainant and thereby causing harm to the reputation of the complainant which had directly resulted in loss and harm atleast in the instance of the Madras Customs.