9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssal of the said discharge petition, the third and fourth accused have filed the above revision. Held that:- As per the partnership deed registered on 01.06.1992, all the four accused have been listed as partners and have agreed to keep themselves actively engaged in conducting the business of the first accused company, as working partners. As such, admittedly, all the partners are actively taking into participation to manage the day to day affairs of the first accused company. The second accused is the Managing Partner, who has given statement that all the partners are engaged in business activity as working partners. Therefore, the prosecution case has been levelled against all the accused - The prosecution case is at a partly heard st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m from the proceedings and the same has been resisted by the complainant/Assistant Collector, Central Excise, after filing detailed counter statement. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the records and on considering the averments made by the parties, dismissed the said discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.2746 of 2008. 3. Against the dismissal of the said discharge petition, the third and fourth accused have filed the above revision. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, argued that there is absolutely no evidence against the revision petitioner warranting framing of charges under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. Actually, no case has been made out against the revision petitioners herein. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first accused Company. M/s.M.S.Abdullah Sons beedi factory. According to 9AA of the Central Excise and Salt Acts, in case, a company is prosecuted, the person, who is incharge of the day to day affairs of running of the firm alone should be arrayed as an accused, along with the firm. The proviso to the Section contemplates that any person, who is a partner of the firm is not liable for prosecution, provided he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised due care to prevent such offence. The learned competent counsel vehemently argued that in the prosecution case, the prosecution witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 have admitted that they are not aware as to who is in charge of day to day administration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Magistrate after well considering the partnership deed, has concluded that the accused are partners in the first accused company. 7. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the trial Court, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the said order. This Court is of the further view that on the side of the prosecution, four witnesses have been examined and as such, the prosecution case is at a partly heard stage. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. However, the accused are entitled for speedy trial as per Article 21 of the Constitutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
