VIJAY AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant filed private complaint against A-1 to A-3 alleging offences punishable under Sections 379, 381, 403, 408,120-B and 34 IPC and it was registered by the then IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as C.C.No.759 of 2003. Subsequent to reorganisation of courts at Hyderabad, the case has been pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. During trial of that case, P.W.I was examined-in-chief from 20.04.2007 to 14.09.2007 on different dates in piecemeal manner. Cross-examination of P.W.I was deferred at request of the defence counsel for A-1 to A-3. At that stage, the 2nd respondent/ defacto-complainant filed Criminal MP No.5860 of 2007 in the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C to add Vijay Agarwal and Kommaraju Jaya (who are the petitioners in both the revision petitions respectively) as A-4 and A-5 and proceed with the case to punish them along with A-1 to A-3 after trial. The proposed A-4 and A-5 who are petitioners herein filed counter opposing the said petition. The trial court by order dated 30.01.2008 dismissed Criminal MP No.5860 of 2007 holding "that there is no prima facie case, much less any material evidence, suggesting reasonable probability of commission of any offence by respondents 1 and 2 and to issue process adding them as proposed accused 4 and 5 respectively". As against the said order, the 2nd respondent/ defacto-complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.26 of 2008 in the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court, Hyderabad which court by order dated 19.03.2008 allowed the said revision petition to add the petitioners herein as A-4 and A-5 and to proceed against them with A-1 to A-3 according to law. The said order is being questioned by the petitioners herein.

(2.) THE complainant is Regency Ceramic Limited, Hyderabad engaged in Manufacturing and Marketing of all kinds of Ceramic Porcelain, glazed wall and floor tiles etc. THE complainant's unit is at Yanam. THE complainant set up another Manufacturing Unit at Kariakal. A-1 joined in the complainant company as Vice- President (Marketing) and became President heading the Marketing Department. A-2 joined in the complainant company as Manager (Electrical) and became General Manager (Products). A-3 joined in the complainant company as Junior Stenographer and became Junior Manager (Management Information Systems). A-1 retired from service of the complainant on 02.10.2002. In spite of it, A-1 continued to work as President of the company on the same terms and conditions. It is alleged that A-1 availed casual leave for three days from 23.01.2003 to 25.01.2003 and that without resuming to work thereafter A-1 gave E-mail on 03.02.2003 expressing his inability to continue in Superannuated service and that A-1 never bothered to hand over charge and that therefore on 10.02.2003 office room separately allotted to A-1 was opened and it was found to be empty and that no relevant papers were found and nothing was found in his computer's memory and the confidential information relating to production, planning, costing based on body glaze information etc., besides whole of marketing information found erased. On 12.02.2003, A-2 tendered his resignation as General Manager (Products) and it was accepted immediately. A-3 sent resignation on 26.04.2003. It is alleged that sequence of the above events one after the other gave reasonable suspicion that A-1 to A-3 together left the employment pursuant to an understanding among themselves and that when department of MIS (Management Information Systems) was checked, it was found that A-3 had stolen all the information of the key areas of product formulations, optimisation of cost manufacture of the product, sources of the raw-materials, their chemical composition etc. which are the key areas.

(3.) IN the examination-in-chief of Manager (Public Relations) of the complainant as P.W.I, he marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 and C-1. At this stage, it may be noted that after filing of the complaint, the complainant obtained search warrant from the Magistrate for search of corporate office of SCPL at Hyderabad. During search of SCPL office at Hyderabad, the police seized Ex. C-1 copy of letter from that office and produced the same in court. Ex.C-1 reads as follows: