VINOD SOMNATH KAPUR Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions (i.e. Cri. M. No. 5931-M and 6250-M or 1982) 'under section 481, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners Under section 420 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, will be disposed of by this common order as these arise out of the same complaint.

(2.) THE petitioner in Cr. M. No. 5931-M of 1982 is the President of the kegg Farms, which is a poultry breeding organisation in the country establishment 1967. Petitioner No. 1 Shashi Kapur is the Vice President of the Kegg Farms and petitioner No 2 Mahabir Singh is Area Manager (Dhuri) of the said Farms. Kegg Farms is recognised by the Department of Science and Technology. Respondent Jagjit Singh filed a complaint under section 420 read with section 34, Indian Penla Code, against the petitioners on 22nd July, 1982, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, The complainant briefly, is that on 3rd February, 1982, Shashi Kapur, Vice President. Marketing, Kegg Firms and Mahabir Singh alleged to be the Sales Manager of the Kegg Farm at Ludhiana, went to the house of the respondent and persuaded him to by golden Keystone chicks produced by the Kegg Farms, whose owners are Vinod Somnath Kapur and Shashi Kapur, petitioners, amongst others. The representation which Shashi Kapur and Mahabir Singh petitioners are alleged to have made was that "the Kegg Farm chicks are free from Marek's disease and they are fully protected against the disease by vaccination of the day-old chicks in the hatchery". The said persons are alleged to have further represented that "they are owners and Sales Manager respective of the Kegg Farms and the fact that they are representing is in the full knowledge of accused No. I." Upon this representation the respondent claims to have paid them Rs. 2,000/-in cash being advance for the supply of 3500 pullet chicks at the rate of Rs. 4.40 per chick. It is further averred in the complaint that on 10th February, 1982. Mahabir Singh obtained from the respondent a bark draft No. 311176 dated 10th February, 1982 drawn in favour of the Kegg Farms for Rs. 10,000/- There after, on 24th February, 1982, Mahabir Singh petitioner again went to the respondents form to deliver chicks that be had ordered. However, instead of 3500 chicks, he delivered 3920 chicks (420 in excess of the number paid for) to the respondent (complainant). At that time, Mahabir Singh petitioner was paid Rs. 3400/- in cash, thus completing the price of Rs. 1540/- for 3500 chicks. It is further alleged in the complaint that after nine weeks the chicks started dying. Post-mortem of the dead chicks is stated to have been conducted on 28th April. 1982 onwards by P.W. 4 Dr. Rajinder Singh Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Government Poultry Farm, Malerkotla. This doctor declared Marek's Disease and also told that this disease carries no treatment and will take heavy toll. On 11th June, 1982, PW. Dr. Gurcharan Singh, Deputy Director Poultry also visited the Farm of the respondent (complainant). He fond Marek's Disease in acute form in the flock and intimation of this fact was claimed to have been sent by the respondent to the petitioners by a telegram, but without any response. Till 22nd July, 1982, the complainant is alleged to have lost 1320 birds and there was every likelihood of more deaths due to Marek's Disease in the flock. The complainant-respondent further claims that but for representation made by the petitioners, he would not have bought chicks from the Kegg Farms and, thus, he had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 20,000/, over and above the price of chicks at Rs. 15400/-.

(3.) MR . Hardev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, canvassed that even if the allegations in the complaint may be accepted at their face value, no offence is made out under section 420 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners. I find merit in his contention. The representation made by the petitioners, according to the complaint, was as under :