NEW DELHI: When it comes to screen size, does the bezel count? Regardless of the answer to that, does a manufacturer have to answer a criminal case on this count? Samsung India has asked the Supreme Court to rule on such a matter, arguing that disputes over screen size are civil in nature.The case was sparked by the purchase of a set in 2003, back when cathode ray tubes were still around and flat panels were yet to dominate the market. Ashok Chaurdia, a resident of Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh , bought a set that he said had been advertised as having a 29-inch screen. But then he got his measuring tape out and found the viewing diagonal was just 27 inches. He sent the company several legal notices, but did not get any reply.He then filed a criminal case accusing Samsung of cheating by way of fraudulent representation in its brochures. A trial court issued bailable warrants against the company and its executives.Samsung denied the accusation, referring to prevalent trade practices. It also cited Consumer Electronics and Appliances Manufacturing Association certificates to say that screen size referred to the picture tube and not the viewing area.In this case, the difference between what was promised and what was delivered was 1.8 inches or 6.2%. It also said that its rival adopted similar practices.The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash the criminal case against the company in August 2008. It ruled that prima facie a case of cheating had been made out as the company didn’t say that a part of the picture tube would be covered by the bezel or frame. It also allowed the trial to go on.In the Supreme Court, the Samsung petition came before a bench of justices Madan B Lokur and Uday Lalit on Tuesday but wasn’t heard as the latter recused himself, saying he had previously appeared as a lawyer for the company. The case will now come up before another bench. Chaurdia’s complaint is against managing director SS Lee under Section 190 of the CrPC