9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1890 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of revision petition - summoning of accused - order of intermediatory or quasi-final in nature and not interlocutory in nature - Whether the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaints filed by the Labour Department against the petitioner as an individual without making the Company, in which he is a member on Board, are maintainable? - HELD THAT - A perusal of the complaints shows that the petitioner is arraigned as an accused in his individual capacity, although his position as a Director in the Company is mentioned. It is one thing to say that the Company is the accused represented by its Director and it is another to say that an individual being described as a Director in a particular Company satisfies the requirement of law. An individual can be a member on the Board of several Companies. Unless a Company, which is a juristic person, is arraigned as a party, the Labour Department could not have initiated prosecution only against an individual. In the circumstances, respectfully following the Authority in the case of ANEETA HADA VERSUS GODFATHER TRAVELS TOURS (P.) LTD. 2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT , the complaints filed by the Senior Labour Inspector qua an individual without the Corporate entity being made as a member, were not maintainable. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of criminal revision petitions under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Legality of the impugned orders taking cognizance of offences against the petitioner as an individual Director without involving the Company as an accused. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The maintainability of criminal revision petitions under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the revision petitions were maintainable as the impugned orders deciding to summon the accused were quasi-final and not interlocutory. He cited a Supreme Court judgment and a previous order of the Court to support this argument. The counsel highlighted that Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. provides a statutory remedy available to the petitioner for challenging such orders. Issue 2: Legality of the impugned orders taking cognizance of offences against the petitioner as an individual Director without involving the Company as an accused. The petitioner's counsel contended that the orders taking cognizance of offences against the petitioner as an individual Director were illegal. He argued that if a corporate body is to be prosecuted, the entity itself must be made an accused, and only then can the directors be proceeded against. Citing relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the counsel emphasized the necessity of arraigning the company as an accused. The counsel further pointed out that the complaints filed against the petitioner were mechanical in nature, lacking proper application of mind by the Magistrate. The High Court Government Pleader, however, supported the impugned orders, stating that the complaints were correctly filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and signed by the authorized officer. The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner, being a Director of the Company, was rightfully arraigned as the respondent. Additionally, the Government Pleader suggested that the petitioner should raise defenses before the Magistrate instead of directly approaching the Court. In the judgment, the Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and analyzed the relevant legal principles. The Court referred to a Supreme Court case and a previous judgment by the same Court, emphasizing the necessity of involving the corporate entity as an accused before proceeding against individual directors. The Court noted that the complaints filed against the petitioner as an individual Director, without making the Company a party, were not maintainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, set aside the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, and granted liberty to the State to take fresh legal action in accordance with the law.
|
