C.R.R. No. 2927 of 2012 and C.R.A.N. No. 1887 of 2013. Case: Mahendra Soni and Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal and Ors.. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | C.R.R. No. 2927 of 2012 and C.R.A.N. No. 1887 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sekhar Basu and Kusal Mukherjee, Advs. and For Respondents: Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P., Sreyashee Biswas and Pawan Kr. Gupta, Advs. |
| Judges | Ashim Kumar Roy, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 403, 405, 406,408, 409, 415, 418, 420 |
| Judgement Date | January 15, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.
-
The petitioners viz., Mahendra Soni, Srikant Mohta, Vishnukant Mohta and Jiwan Das Mohta, who happen to be the directors of Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd., on being charge sheeted under section 403/405/406/408/418/420 IPC, along with two others viz., Satyajit Saha, and Kranti Kumar, a Director and the AGM Operation of the complainant company, Brand Value Communication Limited, have now approached this court invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the said charge sheet against them.
-
The impugned charge sheet is arising out of the First Information Report relating to Baguiati Police Station Case No. 689/2011 and relates to all the offences for which the FIR was registered.
-
The case of the de facto complainant as it transpires from the allegations made in the FIR is as follows;
-
The complainant company Brand Value Communication Limited entered into an Film Assignment Agreement with the accused company Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd.
-
The accused No. 6 and 7 in course of their employment as the Director and AGM Operation of the complainant company approached its management, jointly in connivance with each other and with a pre-planned design and made a proposal for entering into a Film Assignment Agreement with the accused company for obtaining telecast and transmission rights in respect of 70 feature films through its channel Rupasi Bangla against valuable consideration.
-
On being constantly persuaded by the accused No. 6 and 7 the complainant company, Brand Value Communication Limited, on 7.4.2010 had finally entered into a film assignment agreement with the accused company, Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. and in this regard the complainant company paid a sum of Rs. 25 crores to the accused company by account payee cheques and through the accused No. 6 and 7.
-
The said agreement was executed on behalf of the complainant company Brand Value Communication Limited by the accused No. 6 and 7, it's Director and AGM Operation and on behalf of the accused company Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. by the accused No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 herein as it's Director.
-
In terms of the said agreement, it was agreed, that the accused company would give a right to telecast total 70 numbers of feature films, to the complainant company through its entertainment channel Rupasi Bangla against payment of Rs. 25 crores being the consideration amount.
-
Out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 25 crores, a sum of Rs. 9 crores each were paid on April 20, 2010 and May 31, 2010 and Rs. 4.5 crores on April 30, 2010 and thereafter a further sum of Rs. 2.5 crores were paid towards the T.D.S.
However, instead of 70 feature films the accused company made over 37 films to the complainant company.
-
On January 10, 2011 the accused No. 6, being the Director of the complainant company addressed a letter to it's Chairman, referring those 37 feature films which were given to its company by the accused company.
-
In the meantime, the officials of the complainant company had been to the office of the accused No. 1 Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. for taking delivery of the rest of the films and contacted the accused No. 2 to 5, the Director of the accused company, who always assured them that the remaining feature films will be supplied shortly but actually never supplied.
-
The management of the complainant company on source information came to learn as to some irregular and illegal activities of accused No. 6 and 7 and started enquiry. In course of such enquiry it revealed that the accused No. 6 and 7 being aided and abetted by each other entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused No. 2 to 5, the Directors of accused No. 1.
-
The management of the complainant company was under a bona fide belief that the accused No. 6 and 7 shall discharge their duties and responsibilities with utmost sincerity, honesty and strictly in terms of the aforesaid Film Assignment Agreement dated 7.4.2010, but regretfully, it has been proved to be futile.
-
The accused No. 6 and 7 have deliberately and intentionally with an oblique design and in connivance and conspiracy with the accused No. 2 and 5 misappropriated and converted to their own use the said property and committed breach of trust with a sole view to cheat the complainant company in violation of the aforesaid agreement and as a result the complainant company suffered huge finance losses.
-
The accused No. 6 and 7 from the very beginning continuously pressed and persuaded for entering into the aforesaid Film Assignment Agreement against huge consideration with intention to deceive the complainant company."
-
-
At the beginning of his argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew the attention of this court to the annexure P-3 to this application and pointed out, in fact, total 68 beta tape of different feature films were delivered to the complainant company in between April 29, 2010 and May 27, 2010 and same were duly received by it's authorized representatives. He then pointed out with reference to those annexures that 10 feature films each were delivered on 29th April, 2010 and on May 21, 2010, 20 feature films on May 25, 2010 and 28 feature films on May 27, 2010 respectively. He further contended according to the complainant a total sum of Rs. 22.5 crores were paid to the accused company in instalments and the first instalment on April 20, 2010 and next instalment on May 31, 2010 and April 30, 2010 respectively. Therefore, total 68 feature films were supplied to the complainant company before the last instalment was received. He also invited the attention of this court to annexure P-4, an advocate's letter, addressed to the accused company Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the complainant company and pointed out according to the same 45 technically feasible films...
To continue reading
Request your trial