CR.MA/1899/2002 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1899 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = MANAGING DIRECTOR CASTROL INDIA LIMITED - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR NIGAM R SHUKLA for Applicant(s) : 1, MR MUKESH PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR BD KARIA for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 14/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of CR.MA/1899/2002 2/8 JUDGMENT Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the applicant has prayed to quash Criminal Case No.1096 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Pardi, District Valsad. 2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein had lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Pardi alleging commission of the offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the present applicant and another which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.1096 of 2001. The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that the accused No.1 – Shri Avesh Ismail Kaizer, Legal Executive, representing the respondent No.2 Company had filed a complaint on 6th September, 1997 before the GIDC Police Station, Vapi with the intention of giving false statement and allegations against the complainant's involvement in duplication of products like Castrol CRB Plus, Castrol Dusol, Castrol GTX, Castrol 2 Tek and Castrol Super TT, which are the products of the accused Company. On the basis of the information given by the accused No.1, the GIDC, Vapi Police Station registered First Information Report being Vapi Police Station I – C.R. No.126 of 1997 and arrested the complainant. Not only that, pursuant to the lodging of the complaint, the same was published in a leading newspaper [Sandesh]. According to the complainant, the contents of the said publication were defamatory in nature which lowered the reputation and image of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that pursuant to the complaint, he was arrested and CR.MA/1899/2002 3/8 JUDGMENT subsequently released on bail and further investigation was made by the police. However, the complainant had not received any correspondence from the police or from the Court. Therefore, the complainant inquired about the matter from Pardi Court and came to know that chargesheet had been submitted by the police authority after completing the investigation. Therefore, the complainant obtained certified copy of the chargesheet and investigation report, and the orders of the court, which according to the complainant, confirmed that he had been released and acquitted from the chargesheet and the Court has passed an order to that effect. According to the complainant, the cause of action arose from the date of knowledge of the facts, after obtaining the certified copy of the relevant reports and chargesheet from the Court. 3. Pursuant to the complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi examined the complainant on oath and vide order dated 7th March, 2001, directed issuance of summons against the accused persons, namely, the applicant and another. Being aggrieved, the applicant has moved the present application for quashing the said complaint. 4. Heard Mr.Nigam Shukla, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.Mukesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr.B.D.Karia, learned advocate for respondent No.2. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant has drawn the CR.MA/1899/2002 4/8 JUDGMENT attention of the Court to certain factual aspects of the matter. It is submitted that the First Information Report had been lodged by the accused No.1, Legal Executive, on 6th September, 1997; the newspaper reports were published on 7th and 8th September, 1997; the report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) had been filed by the police on 23rd November, 1997 and the same had been accepted by the concerned Court on 1st December, 1997, whereas the present complaint has been lodged on 7th March, 2001. It is submitted that, in case of an offence committed under Section 499 of the IPC, punishment is provided under Section 500, which provides for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or both. It is submitted that, Section 468(2)(c) of the Code provides that, in case of an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years, cognizance of the complaint can be taken within a period of three years from the time of commission of the offence. It is submitted that, in the facts of the present case, the offence can be stated to have been committed on 6th September, 1997 when the First Information Report was lodged on or 7th or 8th September, 1997 when the newspaper reports has been published. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the complaint which is filed on 7th March, 2001 is barred by limitation inasmuch as it is filed beyond the period of three years from the date of the offence. 6. It is further contended that even on merits, insofar as the present applicant who is the Managing Director of the CR.MA/1899/2002 5/8 JUDGMENT Company, is concerned, he is in no way connected with the offence in question inasmuch as he is not the complainant insofar as the First Information Report lodged against the respondent No.2 – complainant is concerned. It is submitted that in the circumstances, there is absolutely no case against the present applicant. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court : [a] Ramesh Chandra Sinha v. State of Bihar, (2003)7 SCC 254. [b] State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054. [c] Srinivas Pal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1729. [d] Surinder Mohan Vikal v. Ascharj Lal Chopra, AIR 1978 SC 986. 8. On the other hand, Mr.B.D.Karia, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – original complainant has opposed the application. It is submitted that the limitation would start from the date of knowledge and that, the respondent No.2 – complainant came to know about the report under Section 169 of the Code being accepted by the Court only subsequently, and therefore, the limitation would start from that date. In the circumstances, the complaint filed CR.MA/1899/2002 6/8 JUDGMENT by the respondent No.2 is well within the period of limitation. It further submitted that the present petition has been filed by the Managing Director, M/s Castrol India Ltd., without specifically naming the person who is the Managing Director. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the application itself is not maintainable. 9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and has perused the record of the case. Insofar as the contention regarding the application not being maintainable as having been filed through the Managing Director without the person being named, is concerned, the same has to be stated to be rejected. As can be seen from the affidavit accompanying the petition, the same is affirmed by one Shri Ramesh Amrutrao Savoor as Managing Director of Castrol India Limited. Besides, in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2, accused No.2 is not a named person, but is a Managing Director of M/s Castrol India Limited. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the applicant in naming the Managing Director as the applicant in the cause title of the application. 10.Insofar as the contention regarding the complaint being barred by limitation is concerned, the same merits acceptance. Though the learned advocate for the applicant has cited various decisions of the Supreme Court, it would not be necessary to refer to each of them in detail, inasmuch as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Mohan Vikal v. Ascharj Lal Chopra (Supra) directly concludes the issue in favour of CR.MA/1899/2002 7/8 JUDGMENT the applicant herein. In the said decision, the Court has held that a complaint under Section 500, Penal Code for defamation will be barred if filed three years after the commission of the offence. Where in a complaint under Section 500 it is alleged that the defamatory matter was contained in a complaint under Sections 406/420, Penal Code against the complainant, the period of limitation for filing complaint under Section 500, Penal Code would commence from the date of the complaint under Section 406/420, Penal Code and not from the date the complainant was finally acquitted of offences under Sections 406/420, Penal Code. In the facts of the present case, the First Information Report against the complainant had been filed on 6th September, 1997, hence, the limitation would commence from the said date. Whereas, the present complaint has been lodged on 7th March, 2001, which is much beyond the period of limitation of three years. In the circumstances, the complaint is required to be quashed as being barred by limitation. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. 11.For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The complaint being Criminal Case No.1096 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Pardi, District Valsad, is hereby quashed qua the present petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] CR.MA/1899/2002 8/8 JUDGMENT parmar*