9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questioning correctness of the order passed by learned Special Judge, Sangrur framing charges against the present respondents and one Prem Mohan Tiwari for alleged violation of the provisions contained in Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the 'Act'). 3. Charge was framed by learned Special Judge by order dated 16.9.1997 holding that there was infringement of the provisions of Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947 (in short the 'Control Order') as amended under Section 3(1) of the Act. Samples of the vegetable oil product were drawn from the premises of M/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. on 29.4.1992 and on analysis the sample was found to contain 78% of solvent mustard oil as against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be found out was whether there was any material to proceed against the accused persons. That being the position, the High Court ought not to have threadbare examined as to whether the complainant established about the present respondents being connected with and responsible for running of business for contravention of the statutory provisions. 5. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no material to show that any of them was in charge of and/or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. That being so, the High Court was justified in its view. 6. To appreciate rival submissions it would be necessary to take note of Section 10 of the Act. The said provision reads as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company whom for short we shall describe as the person-in-charge of the company, and (3) any director, manager, secretary or either officer of the company with whose consent or connivance or because of neglect attributable to whom the offence has been committed, whom for short we shall describe as an officer of the company. Any one or more or all of them may be prosecuted and punished. The company alone may be prosecuted. The person-in-charge only may be prosecuted. The conniving officer may individually be prosecuted. One, some or all may be prosecuted. There is no statutory compulsion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the Section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 12. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR1992SC81 , the categories were enumerated as follows: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with, an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 13. Somewhat similar provision is contained in Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short N.I. Act). The scope and ambit of the said provision has been examined by this Court in several cases. A three Judge Bench in Rajlakshmi Mills v. : Shakti Bhakoo (2002)8SCC236 , held as follows:- The appellant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent as well as her brother-in-law Anoop Bhakoo under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because of dishonour of a ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
