NDLI: Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	403 Theft and misappropriation of the documents 411 r/w. s. 120B ss. 379 IPC
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 379, 403, 411 r/w. s. 120B – Theft and misappropriation of the documents – A Company petition was filed before Company Law Board (CLB) – In the said Company petition, documents No. 1 to 54 were filed by the respondents – Appellant-company alleged that respondents had stolen/ misappropriated documents No. 1 to 54 from the appellant’s premises – It was alleged that documents No. 2 to 28 were photocopied and then they were kept back in the premises – However, documents No. 29 to 54 were not returned and the same were in the possession of the respondents – Pursuant thereto, appellant-company filed criminal complaint u/ss. 379, 403, 411 r/w. s. 120B IPC – After examining employee ‘D’ of the appellant company and complainant ‘S’ (a representative of the company), the Trial court found sufficient grounds for proceeding against all the respondents and also ordered issuance of summons to the respondents for the offences punishable u/ss. 380, 411 and 120B IPC – Aggrieved, respondents filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court held that since original of documents No. 1 to 28 were still in the custody of the complainant, thus the complaint would not survive in respect of the documents No. 1 to 28 – However complaint was allowed by the High Court, insofar as documents No. 29 to 54 were concerned and the matter was remitted to the Trial court – On appeal, held: The allegations in the statement of complainant ‘S’ were vague and lacked material particulars as to the commission of theft – Complainant has neither attributed to any facts nor material particulars as to the commission of theft – In the complaint, there were no specific averments against respondents as to how they were responsible in moving the documents out of the possession of the appellant – Further, the statement of the employee ‘D’ was only a bare statement that respondents had procured documents from the custody of the appellant – In the instant case, the satisfaction of the magistrate was on presumptive footing – Neither the statement of the complainant nor the statement of ‘D’ contained particulars as to the commission of offence – There was no application of mind by the magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence against the respondents – Also, issuance of summons was also not very well founded and the same cannot be sustained – So far as, the allegations of retention of documents No. 29 to 54 are concerned, there are no allegation as to when and how the original documents were removed and retained by the respondents – No prima-facie case is made out against the accused persons – Supreme Court has the power to quash any judicial proceedings u/Art. 136 of the Constitution – Thus, criminal complaint qua the documents No. 29 to 54 quashed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 202 – Scope of enquiry – Held: The scope of enquiry under this section is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not u/s. 204 Cr.P.C. or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to s.203 Cr.P.C. on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any – At the stage of enquiry u/s. 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is only concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence in support of the averments in the complaint to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issuance of process – Held: To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one’s dignity and reputation in the society – In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 29 – Document – Held: The “document” as defined in s.29 IPC is a “moveable property” within the meaning of s.22 IPC which can be the subject matter of theft – The information contained thereon in the documents would also fall within the purview of the “corporeal property” and can be the subject matter of the theft. Penal Code, 1860 – Theft – Intention of the taker – Held: Intention is the gist of the offence – It is the intention of the taker which must determine whether taking or moving of a thing is theft – The intention to take “dishonestly” exists when the taker intends to cause wrongful loss to any other which amounts to theft – It is an essential ingredient of the offence of “theft” that the movable property should have been “moved” out of the possession of any person without his consent.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 663
Petitioner	Birla Corporation Limited
Respondent	Adventz Investments And Holdings Limited & Others
SCR	[2019] 7 S.C.R. 655
Judgement Date	2019-05-09
Case Number	875

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others

Please Log-in to view this content

S. Mohan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Balvir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Puni Devi & Ors. Vs. Tulsi Ram

Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar

Pradeep Vs. The State of Haryana

Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs. State of Punjab

Munishamappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Devilal and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others

Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

S. Mohan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Balvir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Puni Devi & Ors. Vs. Tulsi Ram

Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar

Pradeep Vs. The State of Haryana

Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs. State of Punjab

Munishamappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Devilal and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others