Allowed

Hanuman Prasad v. State

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2017CRLMP/1067/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of cognizance taken against them as company directors under the Essential Commodities Act. The court held that liability under Section 10 requires responsibility for day-to-day affairs, solely holding the office of director is insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance taken against petitioners by the trial court dated 10.8.2004 is quashed; subsequent criminal proceedings pending against them are also quashed.

Hanuman Prasad Vs State — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

(1 of 6)

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1189 / 2005

¶4

D.P. Mansinghka S/o Sh. M.D. Mansinghka, by caste Mansinghka, resident of Mansinghka Bhawan, Gangapur Road, Bhilwara.

¶5

V.N. Mansinghka, S/o Sh. M.D. Mansinghka, by caste Mansinghka, resident of C/O II Mansinghka Chamber, IIIrd Floor, 258, Kalba Devi, Mumbai.

¶6

K.K. Mansinghka S/o Sh. V.N. Mansinghka, by caste Mansinghka, resident of near Dak Bungalow, Bhilwara

¶7

………..Petitioners

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Rajasthan

¶10

………….Respondent

¶11

CONNECTED MATTER

¶12

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1067 / 2005

¶13

Hanuman Prasad S/o Sh. M.D. Mansinghka, by caste Mansinghka, resident of Makar Bhavan, IInd Floor, Bombay.

¶14

…………….Petitioner

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

The State of Rajasthan

¶17

………….Respondent

¶18

Counsel For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit

¶19

Mr. N.K. Gurjar

¶20

Counsel For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶22

Judgment / Order

¶23

19/01/2017

¶24

These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 10.8.2004 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in

¶25

(2 of 6)

¶26

Criminal Regular Case No.503/2003, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against them before the trial court.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that on 8.12.1984, Krishna Singh, the Enforcement Officer has submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station City Kotwali, Bhilwara alleging that on 17.7.1984, he inspected the premises of M/s Rajasthan Vanaspati Products, Bhilwara and four samples of vegetable oil products were taken. It is alleged that the samples were examined by the Chief Directors, Civil Supplies Ministry and the same were found not conforming to the standards prescribed under the Vegetable Oil Control Order, 1949.

¶28

On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.502/1984 was registered at the Police Station, City Kotwali, Bhilwara for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. After investigation, the police has filed chargesheet against two persons namely Surendra Mohan Gupta, the Chemist of the Company and Dinesh Dutt, the Quality Control Chief of M/s Rajasthan Vanaspati Products Ltd. The charges have been framed against the above named two persons for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, however, they have filed an application before the trial court under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. with a prayer for impleading the petitioners as accused, as they were the Directors of M/s Rajasthan Vanaspati Products Ltd. These accused persons have also prayed that they

¶29

(3 of 6)

¶30

may be discharged from the allegations levelled against them.

¶31

Later on, the aforesaid accused persons have preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No.45/1992 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 19.7.2000 has disposed of the aforesaid criminal revision petition while remanding the matter to the trial court for hearing the plea of the accused persons Surendra Mohan Gupta and Dinesh Dutt for their discharge and for impleadment of petitioners as accused. The trial court vide order dated 10.8.2004 has refused to discharge the accused persons namely Surendra Mohan Gupta and Dinesh Dutt from the charges levelled against them, however, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court took cognizance against the petitioners solely on the ground that the petitioners were the Directors of M/s Rajasthan Vanaspati Products Ltd. at the time of when the inspection was carried out. It is contended that the trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners were not responsible for day to day business of the company and accused Dinesh Dutt was only responsible for day to day business of the company as per the resolution dated 11.11.1976 of the Board of Directors of M/s Rajasthan Vanaspati Products Ltd. It is further contended that once the charge-sheet has been filed against two accused persons by the Investigating Agency with a clear finding that only those accused persons are responsible for day to day affairs and conduct of the business of the company, then, the trial court without there

¶33

(4 of 6)

¶34

being any evidence against the petitioners has illegally took cognizance against them. It is contended that as per Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Directors of the

¶35

company can only be prosecuted if they are responsible for day to day business of the company. It is further contended that the order passed by the trial court is contradictory because on the one hand, the trial court has relied upon the resolution dated 11.11.1976 of the Board of Directors of the company and held that as accused Dinesh Dutt was responsible for day to day business of the company, therefore, he cannot be discharged, however, at the same time, the trial court took cognizance against

¶36

the petitioners only because the petitioners were the Directors of the company at the relevant time. It is contended that when the documentary evidence suggests that though the petitioners were the Directors of the company but were not responsible for day to day business of the company, the order passed by the trial court taking cognizance against them is bad in the eye of law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 67 .

¶38

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and argued that the trial court has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, hence, there is no force in

¶39

(5 of 6)

¶40

these criminal petitions.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order passed by the trial court.

¶42

The trial court though has taken into consideration the resolution dated 11.11.1976 of the Board of Directors and has held that since accused Dinesh Dutt was responsible for day to day business of the company and was also responsible for manufacturing process, took cognizance against the petitioners solely on the ground that the petitioners are the Directors of the company. As per Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, if a Director of the company is not responsible for day to day affairs of the company, he cannot be prosecuted.

¶43

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) has held as under :-

¶44

“Proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the fact of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing ‘the proceedings in exercise of the powers under Section 482.

¶45

In the instant case, the complaint clearly contains the allegations regarding the samples taken by the Inspector from a shop which was sent to the Public Analyst, was manufactured by the company in question and that the Public Analyst found the samples to be adulterated. The complaint was filed against the company, its Directors and the Manager. So far as the Directors are concerned there is not even a whisper nor a shred of evidence nor anything to show, apart from the presumption drawn by the complainant that there is any act committed by the Directors from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that they could also be vicariously liable. In these circumstances therefore, it can be said

¶46

(6 of 6)

¶47

that no case against the Directors has been made out ex facie on the allegations made in the complaint and the proceedings against them were rightly quashed by the High Court.”

¶48

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners only on the ground that they were the Directors of M/s Rajasthan Vanaspati Products Ltd. at the relevant time and without taking into consideration the fact that they were not responsible for day to day affairs and conduct of the business of the company.

¶49

Hence, these criminal misc. petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 10.8.2004 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.503/2003, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is hereby quashed.

¶50

Consequently, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in the trial court are also quashed.

¶51

(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.

¶52

ms rathore/1-2

Hanuman Prasad v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Prasad v. State

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

Nand Kishore and Anr. Vs Bankat Lal and Ors.

Budh Ram Vs State and Anr.

Kapoor Chand Vs State and Anr.

Mahendra Singh Vs State and Anr.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Ali Mulla Vs State and Anr.