@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R. Mala, J.@mdashThis revision has been filed challenging the order of dismissal of the private complaint filed by the petitioner on 21.03.2006 in C.C. No.20 of 2005, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner''s son Sankar, who is the agent for purchasing milk, supplied milk to the respondents'' Farm by name M/s. White Field Dairy Farm by purchasing the same from third parties. However, the respondents herein have not settled the amount in time. Hence, the petitioner''s son forced to commit suicide. He left the suicide note also. However, the Trial Court, without considering the same, has dismissed the private complaint stating that no prima facie material was produced before the Court to prove the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 418 and 306 IPC.
3. Adding further, he would submit that the deceased has left the suicide note, in which, he has specifically mentioned that the respondents have not paid the amount and because of their attitude only, he was forced to commit suicide. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents are only the Director and Manager of M/s. White Field Dairy Farm. They have not abetted or instigated the deceased directly to commit suicide. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision reported in
5. Considering the rival submissions made on both sides and on perusal of the typed-set of papers, it is seen that the petitioner''s son by name Sankar is an agent for supplying milk to M/s. White Field Dairy Farm. Here, there is no evidence to show that it is run by the quasi Government i.e., Co-operative Society. A bare reading of the suicide note filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner during argument would go to show that it is not a reliable document, because in one page, he signed in English and in another page, his name was written in Tamil. But the only allegation levelled is that for three days, sale proceeds for milk have not been paid. On the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 Vijayaraj and P.W.2 Palaniammal have been examined. P.W.2 was examined to show that she has lent a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner. P.W.1 was examined to show that the deceased has intimated the fact that unless the accused paid Rs. 50,000/-, he is not in a position to enter the village. He is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased and hence, he is an interested witness. However, prima facie, there is no material produced to take cognizance of offence and, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case made out. Hence, the private complaint has been dismissed.
6. Furthermore, in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in
"19. As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in the name of the Company, even if the appellant was its Managing Director, he cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code. If and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefor. In absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a Director of a Company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offence committed by the Company itself. (See Sabitha Ramamurthy v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya)."
7. Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the milk has been purchased for the Dairy Farm and the amount has to be paid by the Farm. The respondents are only the officials and they are not personally liable to pay that amount.
8. In view of the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the private complaint stating that no prima facie case has been made out and hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. The revision deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.
