REMEX ENGINEERINGPVT.LTD.BOMBAY vs Vijaya Bank

BY this Misc. Application, we are required to decide whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, to launch prosecution against Opposite Party i.e. Vijaya Bank and its employee, Shri Jaikumar Shetty under Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Precisely stated the facts leading to this issue are that by an order dated 12.3.1993, this Commission in Complaint No. 208/92 ordered the Opposite Party, Vijaya Bank to pay to complainant Rs. 4,19,500.08 towards compensation with 18% p.a. interest from 5.7.1987 and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost. The complainant, Remex Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bombay filed an application before this Commission on 13.5.1993 under Sections 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for action to impose penalties for non-compliance of the aforesaid order of this Commission. On the same day, this Commission issued a Show Cause Notice to the Opposite Parties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act returnable on 3.6.1993. It was stated in the said notice that the Vijaya Bank should show cause to this Commission as to why action should not be taken against it for non-compliance of the order of this Commission dated 12.3.1993. On 3rd June, 1993, Vijaya Bank was represented through Shri Shinde, Advocate. An application was filed on behalf of Vijaya Bank for stay of the proceedings which was rejected by this Commission on the same day. The proceedings were adjourned and fixed on the next day i.e. on 4.6.1993 to enable the O.P. to comply the order of this Commission. On 4.6.1993, the complainant M/s. Remex Engineering Pvt. Ltd. filed an application for taking action against the O.P. under Section 193 of the I.P.C. R/W Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended by complainant that since Vijaya Bank has failed to comply the order of this Commission dated 12.3.1993 and since there was no stay order from the National Commission, penalty should be imposed against Vijaya Bank under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Shri Jaikumar Shetty, Sr. Manager of the Vijaya Bank, Worli Branch filed an affidavit before this Commission and stated therein that the order of this Commission dated 12th March, 1993 was served on Vijaya Bank on 30th March, 1993. We therefore, checked our original record and found that the aforesaid statement made by Shri Jaikumar Shetty on oath in the form of affidavit was found to be false. The notice of this Misc. Application was sent by R.P.A.D. It is signed on behalf of Vijaya Bank of having received the order of this Commission on 26.3.1993. It is therefore, contended by complainant that the false statement was made by the O.P. before this Commission. On the basis of the aforesaid application by the complainant, his Commission, by a speaking order again issued a Show Cause Notice to Shri Jaikumar Shetty, Sr. Manager of Vijaya Bank as to why action should not be taken against him for offence punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C. This Commission issued the aforesaid notice since a false statement was found to be made by Shri Jaikumar Shetty during the proceedings before this Commission. Shri Jaikumar Shetty was present before this Commission on 4.6.1993 and was directed to file his reply to the Show Cause Notice on 11.6.1993. This Commission however, observed that the order passed by this Commission on 12.3.1993 was not complied till then by the O.P. On 11.6.1993, we heard the learned Advocate for complainant and Shri Sanjeev Kurian, Advocate with Shri Sural Gokhale, Advocate for Vijaya Bank. We closed the case for orders since Shri Jaikumar Shetty undertook to deposit a crossed cheque for an amount to be paid to complainant, in view of our order dated 12.3.1993. The proceedings were therefore, adjourned and posted on 7.8.1993.

ON the date of hearing i.e. on 7.8.1993, Shri Jaikumar Shetty was represented by Shri Bhakare, Advocate. The complainant again filed another application alleging the non-compliance of the order of this Commission dated 12.3.93 as well as the order dated 11.6.1993 by this Commission. The complainant contended that although Shri Jaikumar Shetty undertook to deposit the payment by crossed cheque on Monday i.e. on 14.6.1993, he did not comply the said order. The prayer for taking action against Shri Jaikumar Shetty for making a false statement was again reiterated on behalf of the complainant. Another Show Cause Notice was issued to Vijaya Bank under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act returnable on 6.9.93. ON 6.9.1993, the complaint was adjourned to 12.10.93. ON 12.10.93, both the sides were heard by this Commission. With a view to have full facts before us, it is also necessary for us to state that the Opposite Party did deposit a crossed cheque of Rs. 7,36,610.08 before the Registrar of this Commission on 14th June, 1993. However, the said cheque was intentionally given by Vijaya Bank in the name of this Commission and therefore, the cheque was useless. We therefore, directed the O.P. to issue a fresh cheque in the name of the complainant since the payment was to paid to the complainant. Thus, from the facts mentioned above, the complainant has submitted that Mr. Jaikumar Shetty by making false statement in his affidavit has committed an offence punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C. and therefore, necessary complaint be filed against him before the Criminal Court having jurisdiction to decide it. We are satisfied from the material on record that Shri Jaikumar Shetty has made the false statement during the judicial proceedings before this Commission and he is therefore, liable for prosecution under Section 193 of the I.P.C.

Section 13(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides that a proceeding before the State Commission shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the I.P.C. and shall also be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The aforesaid provisions are made obviously with a view to discourage litigants from making false statements before the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Giving false statement or fabrication of false evidence is an offence against public justice and therefore since it is our view that Shri Jaikumar Shetty having committed an offence against public justice punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C. suitable action is required to be taken in a Criminal Court. This Commission is also empowered under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code to take action against a person who commits any offence during the proceedings before this Commission, under Sections 193 and 228 of the I.P.C. We therefore, under the provisions of Section 195 r/w Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. made an enquiry on the application of complainant and found that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute Jaikumar Shetty for making false statement and punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C.

DURING the proceedings in this Misc. Application, Vijaya Bank has written a letter to this Commission. In the said letter, the Vijaya Bank has writtten very rude language, obviously with intention to cause insult and annoyance to this Commission while sitting in a judicial proceedings. We have therefore, also issued a Show Cause Notice to Vijaya Bank through its Chairman, as to why action should not be taken against it, under Section 228 of the I.P.C. A Show Cause Notice was also issued to Vijaya Bank. After hearing both the parties, we are also of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to file a complaint against Vijaya Bank under Section 228 of the I.P.C. before a competent Court of jurisdiction. If the Opposite Party to raise contention with false statement before the National Commission in their affidavit dated 1st June, 1993, we would have observed that the complainant can take suitable steps in Delhi. However, Shri Jaikumar Shetty, Sr. Manager of the Opposite Party has done his worst by filing an affidavit dated 11th June, 1993 before us where in he admits the false statement made regarding the date of receipt of our final order dispossing the complaint and by further saying that "I hereby reiterate and confirm that the rest of the contentions of the said affidavit dated 1.6.93 are true and correct. He therefore, wants us to believe the false statement made by him on earlier occasion to be true. In para 2 of his affidavit dated 11.6.1993, Shri Jaikumar Shetty has stated that "I humbly say and submit that inadvertantly it has mentioned in the affidavit in support of the 1st appeal preferred before the National Commission, New Delhi, that the order of the State Commission dated 12.3.1993 was received by the Opposite Party on 30th March, 1993, instead of 26.3.1993". We would like to mention that the contentions of Shri Jaykumar Shetty that the Bomb Blast took place in Bombay on 30th March, 1993 and the entire Bombay was under curfew, because of the Bomb Blasts is not correct. Factually Bomb Blasts took place in Bombay on 12th March, 1993 and not on 30th March, 1993. Similarly, the entire Bombay was not under Curfew but only certain areas were under Curfew. The office of the Opposite Party Bank is at a short distance of about 3 Km. away from the place of Bomb Blast at Worli area. In fact, entire Bombay was normal on the very next day of the blast except curfew in certain restricted areas. The Opposite Party, Bank has not filed anything to show that no transactions could take place on 12th and 13th March, 1993. In fact banking transactions were normal in Bombay on those days. Under these circumstances we find that the Opposite Parties have no regard for truth. In fact they have acted in the most casual manner before us and did not honour the undertaking given before this Commission on 11.6.1993 to produce the crossed cheque for payment to the complainant as promised and have even acted in a manner that we were constrained to issue Show Cause Notice under Section 228 of the I.P.C. From the facts and circumstances of this case, we therefore, hold that prosecution under Sections 193 and 228 of the I.P.C. is required to be taken against Shri Jaykumar Shetty, Sr. Manager and Vijaya Bank. We therefore, direct the Registrar of this Commission to file a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrare, Esplanade Court, Bombay against Shri Jaykumar Shetty and M/s. Vijaya Bank, through its Chairman punishable under Sections 193 and 228 of the I.P.C. The Registrar is directed to approach the Public Prosecutor concerned to draft the complaint and take early step to present it in Criminal Court. Ordered accordingly. ___________________