Razack, & Ors. vs The Inspector of Police & Anr.

Heard Mr.V.Laxminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first

respondent as well as Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, learned counsel for the second respondent.

The case of the prosecution is that M/s.Steel World succeeded in the tender for removal of M.S. Scraps weighing 116 MT through auction sale.

The petitioners herein on behalf of the M/s.Steel World, had installed a remote control electronic device in the weigh bridge and thereby had

reduced the weight of the scrap carried in the petitioner''s lorry and thereby caused loss to the Dharmapuri Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited.

Since the petitioners had colluded and caused wrongful loss to the society, they are liable to be punished under Sections 264 and 420 IPC.

Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet is liable to be quashed on two grounds. Firstly, since

the scrap sold through tender was identified and fixed at 116 MT, transporting the scrap from out of the society premises on their own lorry will

not amount to cheating since what was transported was their own goods. Secondly, it is submitted that the technician, who claim to have identified

the remote control electronic device had taken away the device with him and had replaced the same with some other remote control electronic

device which came to be seized under the mahazor and therefore, the offence under Sections 264 & 420 IPC are not made out.

Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,

clearly implicates the petitioner''s fraudulent and dishonest inducement to cause wrongful loss to the society and therefore, the offences charged

have been clearly made out. He further submitted that the remote control electronic device was properly seized under mahazor and there was no

illegality with regard to the same.

Mr.Bala Ramesh, learned counsel for the second respondent reiterated the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and

sought for dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

With regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue as to whether the scrap transported by the petitioners

are their own goods or not is not the case on which the petitioners have been charged. The case of the prosecution is that by fraudulently tampering

with the weigh bridge, the petitioners had transported the scrap, over and above what was displayed in the weigh bridge, and thereby caused

wrongful loss to the society. Hence, the submission of the petitioners that carrying of their own scrap in the lorry will not amount to cheating may

not be correct. The second ground that the remote control electronic device was taken away by the technician of the annual maintenance

contractor is a factual aspect which needs to be established during the time of trial. Likewise, the issue as to whether the device seized under the

mahazor and the one alleged to have been installed in the weigh bridge are one and the same, is also a factual aspect which is to be established

during the course of trial and this cannot be a ground for quashing the charge sheet.

By putting forth the above said two grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to impress this Court that the offence under

Sections 264 and 420 IPC have not been made out. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment in Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. V. Rajvir

Industries Ltd., and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1683 and submitted that the ingredients of the offence of cheating has not been made out. I

am unable to accept the contention in view of the fact that the statements of the witnesses made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly establishes that

there was a perception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement to take away the scrap over and above what was shown in the weigh bridge with

the help of remote control electronic device and thereby had caused damage to the society. Hence the judgment relied upon may not be of help to

the petitioners.

In view of the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Original Petition does not deserve any merits. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands

dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.