2023 (7) TMI 443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all the confidential business information; that the respondent through its parent company in Singapore had an agreement with the company by name 'Daitoh Trading Company Limited, Japan' [hereinafter referred to as 'Daitoh' for the sake of convenience] for management of ships; that around June 2020, the petitioner connived and colluded with its customer Daitoh and made them terminate their agreement with the respondent's parent company for ship management; that on 12.06.2020, the said Daitoh had issued a termination notice; that even while he was working with the respondent without the knowledge of the respondent incorporated a separate company as early as in June 2020 by the name 'NSK Ship Management Pvt. Ltd.,' which had an identical name and operating pattern as that of the respondent's company; that on 15.07.2020, the petitioner was appointed as Director in the said company although he was in employment with the respondent company; that thereafter the respondent came to know that Daitoh had entered into an agreement for the management of the vessels with the company which was incorporated by the petitioner; that the petitioner who was aware of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fences of the Indian Penal Code are not made out and in any event, it can also be investigated by the SFIO. (c)Further, the learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner had sent the laptop by courier on 24.08.2021. Since the offence under Section 452 of the Act is quasi-criminal in nature and is only meant to provide a speedy mechanism for the recovery of property, the fact that the petitioner had returned the property would absolve him from the offence under Section 452 of the Act. The learned counsel relied upon the following Judgments in support of his submissions; (i)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain Vs. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd., & Ors. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 732; (ii)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Lalita Jalan & Anr. Vs. Bombay Gas Co.Ltd. & Ors reported in (2003) 6 SCC 107; (iii)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shubh Shanti Services Ltd. Vs. Manjula S. Agarwalla & Ors. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 30; (iv)Judgment of this Court in Doraisamy & Ors. Vs. The state rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. in Crl.O.P.No. 10969 of 2017 dated 25.04.2019; (v)Judgment of this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses and not adjudicate disputed facts. (i)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora and Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 581; (ii)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. M.Devendrappa and another reported in (2002) 3 SCC 89; (iii)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajeshbhai Mujilibhai Patel and Others Vs.State of Gujarat and another reported in (2020) 3 SCC 794; (iv)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458; (v)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315; (vi)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State Vs. M.Maridoss and Another reported in (2023) 4 SCC 338; (vii)Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Trhu Cbi Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi reported in (2014) 15 SCC 29; 5. This Court finds that the allegation with regard to the offence under Section 452 of the Act is that the petitioner had retained th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d submit a report to the Central Government. The Central Government may, on such report or on a report of any inspector appointed by the Central Government may, direct an investigation by SFIO. The Central Government may also direct such an investigation, suo motu, if it is in the public interest. Section 212 of the Act provides for an investigation by SFIO. What is relevant for the purpose of discussion in the instant case is Section 212(6)(ii) of the Act, which is extracted hereunder for better appreciation; "212. Investigation into affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office.- (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 1[offence covered under section 447] of this Act shall be cognizable and no person accused of any offence under those sections shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the inception. It may at best amount to a breach of promise. Hence, cheating is not made out since the petitioner was admittedly working in the company for two years. Further, the offences under Sections 378, 403, 405, 408, 120 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out. This Court finds that the allegations that the confidential information and certain technical know-how were taken away by the petitioner are vague. That apart, in order to allege theft of the property, it must be shown that the complainant was deprived of the said property. Assuming that the confidential information and other intellectual property were taken by the petitioner, it cannot be said to be theft because in order to attract the offence of theft, the complainant must be deprived of the property. In the instant case, the nature of the property is intangible, and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant was deprived of the said property since the alleged confidential information is still available with the complainant. The allegation of misuse of information and making personal gain with the said information would, at best, make the petitioner liable civilly to the respondent. ....
TaxTMI