Bombay High Court Quashes Investigation Order in Courier Theft Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence Against Company Employees. The court held that where a parcel is delivered intact and no open delivery is taken, no prima facie case of theft is made out against the courier company or its employee under Sections 378, 379 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 31
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, Blue Dart Express Ltd. (a courier company) and its territorial service representative, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenging an order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, directing the Kranti Chowk Police Station to investigate a complaint filed by respondent no.2, Mrs. Babita Lila, under Section 156(3) CrPC. The complaint alleged that a parcel containing valuable securities was entrusted to the applicants for delivery to Mahesh Kumar Lila at Bhopal, but the securities were stolen. The Magistrate's order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Criminal Revision No.95/2004 on 22/09/2004. The facts revealed that on 24/09/2002, a parcel was collected from Lilasons Industries Ltd., Walunj, and a declaration was signed stating that no valuable securities were in the parcel. The parcel was delivered to the consignee on 26/09/2002 at 13:20 hours in intact condition, and no open delivery was taken. The court noted that the documents produced were not in dispute and that the consignment was received by the consignee in good condition. The legal issue was whether the Magistrate's order directing investigation was sustainable. The applicants argued that there was no prima facie case against them and that the proceedings were an abuse of process. The respondent no.2 contended that the theft occurred during transit. The court analyzed that since the parcel was delivered intact and no open delivery was taken, there was no evidence of theft by the applicants. The court held that the order under Section 156(3) CrPC and its confirmation were not sustainable and quashed the same, allowing the application. The court emphasized that continuing the investigation would be an abuse of process of law.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Quashing of Investigation - Section 482 CrPC - The High Court examined whether the Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing police investigation against a courier company and its employee for alleged theft of valuable securities from a parcel was sustainable - Held that where the consignment was delivered intact and no open delivery was taken, there is no prima facie case against the courier company or its employee, and continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process (Paras 1-8).

B) Criminal Law - Theft - Prima Facie Case - Sections 378, 379 IPC - The complaint alleged theft of valuable securities from a parcel entrusted to the courier company - The court noted that the parcel was delivered intact and the consignee did not take open delivery, indicating no tampering - Held that in the absence of any evidence of theft during transit, no prima facie case is made out against the applicants (Paras 4-8).

C) Criminal Procedure Code - Investigation - Section 156(3) CrPC - The Magistrate's order directing investigation was based on a complaint alleging theft - The court found that the complaint did not disclose any specific act of theft by the applicants and the delivery was made in good condition - Held that the order was not sustainable and liable to be quashed (Paras 1-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation against the applicants, and the confirmation thereof by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is sustainable in law and whether the criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application is allowed. The order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, under Section 156(3) CrPC in complaint no.1625/2002 and the judgment and order dated 22/09/2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Criminal Revision No.95/2004 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Law Points

  • Section 482 CrPC
  • inherent powers
  • quashing of criminal proceedings
  • abuse of process
  • prima facie case
  • courier liability
  • theft
  • criminal breach of trust
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 43

Criminal Application No.2297 of 2004

2011-03-07

A.V. Potdar, J.

Mr. S.G. Ladda for applicants, Mrs. R.K. Ladda (APP) for respondent State, Mr. Rajshree Gudgilla h/f Mr. Vijay Sharma for respondent no.2

Blue Dart Express Ltd. and Prasanna S/o. Vijay Pathak

The State of Maharashtra and Mrs. Babita W/o. Anilkumar Lila

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and its confirmation by Additional Sessions Judge.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the order dated 22/09/2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision No.95/2004 and the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate directing investigation.

Filing Reason

The applicants alleged that the complaint did not disclose any prima facie case against them and the proceedings were an abuse of process of law.

Previous Decisions

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, passed an order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing Kranti Chowk Police Station to investigate the complaint. This order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Criminal Revision No.95/2004 on 22/09/2004.

Issues

Whether the order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation against the applicants is sustainable? Whether the criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law?

Submissions/Arguments

The applicants argued that the parcel was delivered intact and no open delivery was taken, so there is no prima facie case of theft against them. The respondent no.2 contended that the valuable securities were stolen from the parcel during transit.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a consignment is delivered intact and no open delivery is taken, there is no prima facie case of theft against the courier company or its employee, and continuation of investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC would be an abuse of process of law, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

By the present application u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C., the applicants have questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, asking Kranti Chowk Police Station to carry out the investigation u/s. 156(3) of The Cr.P.C. Documents produced as well as not under dispute that the consignment received by the consignee was intact position, in courier language, the delivery was not received as open delivery and delivery was not received in damaged condition.

Procedural History

Respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, being complaint no.1625/2002. The Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing Kranti Chowk Police Station to investigate. The applicants challenged this order in Criminal Revision No.95/2004 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, which was dismissed on 22/09/2004. Thereafter, the applicants filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3), 482
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 378, 379
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Investigation Order in Courier Theft Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence Against Company Employees. The court held that where a parcel is delivered intact and no open delivery is taken, no prima facie case of theft is m...
Related Judgement
High Court “Inordinate Delay of 4828 Days Not Condoned: Landmark Ruling on Limitation Act in Land Acquisition Cases”