Allowed

The Divisional Chief Executive Tobacco Division v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2018Crl.MC/1887/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petition and quashed criminal proceedings. The court held that proceedings must be quashed because the accused was cited only by official capacity rather than by name, and because the company was not impaneled as an accused, citing Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 1887 of 2018) was allowed and the proceedings in the trial court against the petitioner were quashed.

The Divisional Chief Executive Tobacco… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1887 of 2018 -----------------------CC 3490/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,THRISSUR --------------

¶6

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ----------------------

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TOBACCO DIVISION, M/S. ITC LTD.,J.L.NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATHA-700071.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SMT.K.SEEMA SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SMT.P.ANITHA SMT.R.S.GEETHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT : -----------------------------------

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶11

2. JOSE D.J.JUSTIN, HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, OLLUKKARA, OLLUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680655.

¶12

R1 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI B.JAYA SURYA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 1887 of 2018 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶18

ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO. 3490/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

¶19

MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR 3.

¶20

ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 13.06.2016

¶21

PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

¶23

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 22.03.2018

¶24

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶25

Crl.M.C. No.1887 OF 2018

¶26

--------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2018

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶29

Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.3490 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur. The accused is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 20 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner is not shown as an accused by his name but in his official capacity. It is also submitted that the company is not made an accused.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The petitioner is Divisional Chief Executive of Tobacco Division of ITC Ltd. Today's Divisional Chief Executive may not be tomorrow's Divisional Chief Executive, and so on. Only a named person

¶32

can be proceeded against in a criminal case. The proceedings in the trial court are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Under Section

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.1887 OF 2018 2

¶34

26 of the Act, the company as well as 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 shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against him and punished accordingly. There is no reason that the company is not made an accused. In Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd (2012 (5) Supreme Court Cases 661) , the Supreme Court has held that unless the company is made an accused, there cannot be a valid prosecution. On this ground also, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

¶35

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in the trial court against the petitioner are quashed.

¶36

Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶37

The Divisional Chief Executive Tobacco Division v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Chief Executive Tobacco Division v. the State of Kerala

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

Onuoha Celestine Chima Vs the State of Kerala

Hassan Kutty @ Hassan Haji Vs State of Kerala

Anandu Vs the State of Kerala

John K. Oomman Vs State of Kerala

John K. Oomman Vs State of Kerala

Joseline K.Jose Vs State of Kerala