Section 7. Offences by companies
(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person, who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
Judgements applying section 7
Shekhar Edward Bruno Rosario Son of Late Sevastin Rosario, Vs the State of Rajasthan
Outcome: DismissedJUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2027/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 3174/2024 Shekhar Edward Bruno Rosario Son Of Late Sevastin Rosario, Aged About 55 Yea
DismissedOpenIn an anticipatory bail application, the single judge rejected the plea for the primary applicant, an actor accused of filming a coerced nude scene and allegedly assaulting the victim. The court held that the applicant was deeply involved and custodial interrogation was necessary, refusing bail.
DisposedOpenThe High Court of Bombay allowed the applicant to withdraw the bail application. The court granted liberty to file for bail before the Sessions Court, which was directed to dispose of it within three weeks. The court explicitly noted it did not hear the application on merits.
DisposedOpenJUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 7934 / 2017 Mangla Ram @ Manish S/o Ramniwas, By Caste Jat, Resident of Igyar, Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur. (At Present Lodged in District Jail, Nagaur). ----Petitioner Versu
AllowedOpenof 2017 29.08.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No.19 of 2016 arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.58 of 2
AllowedOpenHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6265 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. Rahul P.S., Son of Pashupal, Aged about 29 years, No.15, Ragi Bhavan
AllowedOpen
Show 2 more
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31667 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -144 Year- 2014 Thana -ARWAL District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Hema Devi, wife of Chotu Kumar @ Chotu V
AllowedOpenHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.141 OF 2005 Neelkanth Ganpat Shetgiri & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Mr.Chaurasia i/b Mr.A.M.Saraogi for Appli
DisposedOpen