Case Law

Gian Franco Tacchinardi VS State and another (2008)

The facts of the case

In the case of Gian Franco Tacchinardi vs State, the Managing Director of an export-oriented garment industry, the complainant, opposite party no. 2, Majedur Rahman, lodged a complaint petition before the Chief Metropolitan Court against three foreigners, stating that they had been selling their products to Messrs Oscon Textile Limited since 1985.

For 12 years, they haven’t had any transaction problems. However, this time, due to a discrepancy in the document, the bank refused to pay part of the money. For non-payment of money, it was alleged that the accused made an amicable settlement for payment, but it appears to be a false settlement.

Issue of the case

Will the accused petitioner be liable or not?
Are sections 420, 406 & 109 of the Penal Code of 1860 applicable?

Decision

The decision of the High Court Division is in favour of the accused petitioner.

Justification

The accused petitioner’s advocate, Mr Md Badruddoza, stated that the entire petition’s allegations are based on a preposterous fact. The non-payment of dues in the part of the letter of credit by a foreign buyer, being an admitted business transaction, cannot be treated as a commission of an offence under Section 406/420 of the Penal Code. They did not misappropriate any property under 406 of the Penal Code. The opposing advocate was unable to establish reasonable grounds as a defence.

The alleged transaction between the complainant and the appellant is clearly and admittedly a business transaction. The applicant had already received part of the money under the complainant’s contract. The failure on the part of the appellant to pay the complainant the balance amount under the bill does not warrant any criminal proceeding, as the allegation under the contract is of a civil nature. This case was a waste of valuable court time.