9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Quashing of prosecution against accused under Section 21(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rule 72 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971.
Summary: Issue 1: Prosecution against the accused as Directors and authorised signatories without the Company being arrayed as accused The petitioners sought quashing of the prosecution against them in C.C. No. 825 of 2012 under Section 21(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rule 72 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. The main legal question raised was whether the prosecution against the petitioners as Directors and authorised signatories of the Company, without the Company itself being accused, is legally permissible. Analysis: Section 25 of the Act deals with Offences by Companies, stating that if an offence is committed by a company, the company and individuals in charge of its business are deemed guilty. The Apex Court's decision in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited clarified that specific averments in the complaint are necessary to prosecute company functionaries for company offences. The Court emphasized that the company must be prosecuted for vicarious liability to apply to its functionaries. Decision: The Court found that since the Company, the principal offender, was not prosecuted, the prosecution against the petitioners as Directors and authorised signatories was not maintainable. Citing the legal precedent, the Court quashed the prosecution against the petitioners in C.C. No. 825 of 2012 on the file of Additional MMTC-IV, Bangalore.
|
