AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. S. Chahal, J.
B. K. Sethi and his two sons, Girish Sethi and Surinder Sethi, petitioners 1 to 3 to have preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 274 dated 30686, for offences U/ss 420/120 B. IPC, registered at Police Station South, Chandigarh and the subsequent proceedings.
The case was registered on the complaint filed by the Manager Procurement, PUNTEX. It is a State Govt. undertaking and registered under the Companies Act. A resume of the facts may be taken from the .FIR :
"1. That PUNTEX is a State Govt. undertaking registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
That M/s. Sethi Emporium, Gandhi Marg, Ambala City, agreed to supply Khaki Terrycot (67% Terene, 33% Cotton) @ Rs. 46/ per metre vide their quotation dated 3 July, 1985. The rates quoted were for Puntex Godown, Chandigarh. Packing charges. transit insurance etc. were to be borne by M/s. Sethi Emporium and the payment was to be made by Puntex within 10 days after receipt of the bill.
That Puntex placed its purchase/order No. Puntex/MM/SplI dated 16 July, 1985 on M/s. Sethi Emporium Ambala City for the supply 10,000 metres of Khaki Terricot (67% Terene, 33% Cotton) @ Rs. 46/ per metre for Puntex Godown Chandigarh.
That M/s. Sethi Emporium has supplied the material as per detail given below :
Bill No. Date Qty. Amount
Rs.
2102 20.8.85 150100 69,04600
2102 20.8.85 1334.60 61,39120
2103 26.8.85 111670 51,36820
2104 30.8.85 243070 1,11,821.40
2105 12.9.85 361700 1,66,38200
2108 12.9.85 48700 22,42900
That the said material was in turn supplied by Puntex to different Govt. Departments and other customers.
That the complaints were'' received from our customers that the clot h supplied was of bad quality and accordingly the material was rejected by them and on rejection material the sample of cloth supplied by M/s. Sethi Emporium, Ambala City was sent to the Quality Marking Centre of ''Industries Department in Ludhiana for testing. As per the test report dated 17.3.1986 the specification of the cloth supplied by M/s. Sethi Emporium Ambala City was found to contain 14.2% polyster and 85.2% viscose. Hence, M/s. Sethi Emporium had failed to supply the material as per the specification of the purchase order which was 67% terene and 33% cotton.
In spite of several telephonic conversation and personal visits of the officials of Puntex on various occasions, as well as the legal notice served to the party proved futile as M/s Sethi Emporium, did not lift the material supplied by them which did not conform to the specification of the purchase order placed on them by Puntex.
That due to rejection of material, Puntex suffered heavy losses and the amount is lying blocked in the shape'' of rejected material. Further Puntex had to ''entertain ''various claims against stitched clothes brought back to it by various customers.
M/s Sethi Emporium Ambala City had fraudulently supplied the material not identical to the specification of the purchase order dated 6 July 1985, whereby the party wilfully decieved and knowingly cheated our Organisation i.e. Puntex. You are therefore requested to register a case against M/s. Sethi Emporium Gandhi Market, Ambala City and take necessary action against them.
Manager Procurement."
The petitioners plead that the order for the supply of cloth was as per sample approved by the purchase committee and cloth was supplied in 3 lots on 20.5.85. 30 8.85 and 12.9.85 and payments were received., Cloth was physically verified and payment was made to M/s Sethi Emporium. It was 9 months after the supply that a notice was received from the counsel of the Puntex, Annexure P3 and reply Annexure P4 was sent. The petitioners were only traders and could not be 100% the sure about. the composition of the cloth and word of mouth of the manufacturer was to be believed. Cloth, was thus, supplied to the Punt in accordance with the sample approved, by the purchase committee.
In the return the facts that the supply was by way of sale by sample and the goods had been approved when supplied were admitted. The fact that the petitioners were not the manufacturers of the goods was also not challenged. It was claimed that the petitioners did not knowingly supply the goods of quality agreed upon.
The sale being by sample, the purchase committee of the Puntex had enough opportunity of examining the sample and then comparing the goods supplied with the sample. If the goods supplied were not in accordance with the sample, it should have rejected the same outright. It is not the case of the petitioners that the original sample had also been retained and got analysed and the goods supplied were entirely different from the sample shown to the purchase committee. Since the petitioners are not the manufacturers they had to rely upon the warranty given by the manufacturers. It is not disputed at the bar that the contents of the yarn of the cloth could not have been verified except on an analysis. In this situation, the entire dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Criminal Forum cannot be allowed to be used for settling the disputes of civil nature. The petitioners in this case could have been under a genuine mistake about the nature of the cloth being supplied by the manufacturer and there is absence of mens rea. I thus, conclude that no criminal offence is made out, but it is only a civil liability. I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned, FIR and the consequent proceedings.