9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, adequacy of sentence, liability of individuals in charge of a company for company's contravention of orders. Analysis: The judgment involves two appeals arising from a conviction under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The accused were convicted for failing to pack the required quantity of controlled cloth as directed by the Textile Commissioner's requisitions. The accused pleaded guilty, and the learned Magistrate sentenced them to pay fines. The State appealed the sentence, arguing it was inadequate and lenient, seeking enhancement to a substantive sentence. The defense contended that the accused, being the company's employees, could not be held liable unless the company itself was proven to have committed the offense. They relied on Section 10 of the Act, which deems individuals in charge of a company guilty of contravention only if the company committed the offense. The defense argued that since the company was not prosecuted or proven to have committed the offense, the accused could not be held liable. The defense's argument was supported by the interpretation of Section 10 by the Supreme Court in a previous case. The court held that liability of individuals in charge of a company arises only when the company itself commits the offense. In the present case, as the company was not charged or proven to have contravened the orders, the liability of the accused individuals could not be established. The court emphasized that for Sub-section (2) of Section 10 to apply, the prosecution must first prove the company committed the offense. Since this condition was not met, the prosecution against the accused was deemed illegal. Consequently, the court set aside the orders of conviction and acquitted the accused of the charges. The fines, if paid, were to be refunded. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of establishing a company's offense before holding individuals in charge liable. The court's decision underscores the legal principle that individuals cannot be held responsible for a company's contravention unless the company itself is proven to have ated unlawfully.
|
