Allowed

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Assam Brook Export Ltd.

Kerala HC6 Aug 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/39/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenges the discharge of a corporate accused. The High Court observed that a Constitution Bench decision has overruled the precedent allowing companies to escape prosecution for mandatory imprisonment offences. The Court set aside the discharge.

What did the court decide?

The order discharging the 2nd accused is set aside; the Special Court shall frame charges against the 2nd accused.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Assam Brook… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2007 / 15TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 39 of 2005() ---------------------------CC.3/1999 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶6

REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT

¶7

¶8

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION KARTHIKADAVU, KOCH-17. (RC 26(A)96/KER)

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI

¶10

RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED NO.2

¶11

------------------------ASSAM BROOK EXPORT LTD., REPRESENTED BY SRI.SIDHARTH RAMPURIA, DIRECTOR SHAKESPEARE SARANI CALCUTTA (WEST BENGAL)

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.J.JOSE SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶15

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 39 of 2005 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 6**^th day of August 2007

¶16

ORDER

¶17

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401

¶18

Cr.P.C., the Inspector of Police SPE/CBI, Cochin who was the complainant in R.C. 26(A)/96-KER challenges the order dated 17-92004 passed by the Special Judge, SP/CBI-II, Ernakulam discharging the 2^nd accused by relying on three-Judges' Bench decision of the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Assessment -II v. Velliappa Textiles Limited - 2004 SCC Crl. 1240 wherein it was held that a company being a juristic person cannot be prosecuted in a case for an offence where imprisonment is a mandatory punishment. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has overruled the above decision in Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement - 2005 SCC Crl. 961 wherein it has been held that courts would read down the sentencing provision and impose fine in lieu of imprisonment on companies instead of expressing impossibility of sentencing a corporate body to imprisonment. Hence the order passed by the court below discharging the second accused/Company is unsustainable and, is, accordingly set aside. That court shall

¶19

Crl.R.P. No. 39 of 2005

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

proceed to frame charge against the 2^nd accused as well and make an earnest endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible since the occurrence took place way back in 1990 and the cognizance was taken in the year 1999.

¶22

V. RAMKUMAR,

¶23

(JUDGE)

¶24

ani.

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Assam Brook Export Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Assam Brook Export Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Danesh Vs State of Kerala

Surendran M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Vasu Kunjikannan Maniyattoo Vs Asst.Collector of Customs

Iqbal Vs Gopi Pillai

Narayanan Vs T.E.Vidyadharan

Illikkal Joseph Vs T.Pathu