9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivate) Ltd., while the second respondent, his son, A. C. Parekh, was the Managing Director of that Company. They were also partners of a Firm known as Messrs. C. V. Parekh and Company. Both the Company and the Firm had offices in the same premises. Respondent No. 2 was in charge of the general management of the business and affairs of the Company, so that he was empowered to make all purchases and sales, and to enter into all contracts and do all other acts on behalf of the Company. Respondent No. 1 was also an active participant in the management of the Company, so that the two respondents were in de facto charge of the management of the affairs of the company. The Firm had two plots of land at the Royapuram Goods Yard for clearing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act and with Clause (5) of the Iron and Steel Control Order. In convicting the two respondents, the Magistrate also relied on Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the two respondents, so that the State of Madras has come up to this Court in appeal against that order of acquittal. 2. We have been taken through the judgments of the High Court and the Magistrate by learned Counsel for the appellant and we find that the findings of fact recorded do not justify any interference with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. The trial Magistrate held that the pig iron was bought by the Company, that its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conviction of the respondents, evidence was needed to show that they knew of the sale or were parties to it. No such evidence was available. On this ground, the High Court set aside the conviction of the two respondents. The order of the High Court is obviously correct. No evidence on the record has been pointed out from which it could be inferred that the two respondents had any knowledge of the sale which was manoeuvred by Kamdar and Vallabhadas Thacker, nor is there evidence to show that they took any part in the negotiations for sale, or in the sale itself. Consequently, it is clear that their conviction was not justified. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, sought conviction of the two respondents on the basis of Section 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
