9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mat Rai Garg, managing director of M. M. Leasing Limited. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners, Sushil Singla and Madhu Rai Garg, were simply directors of the company and were neither in charge of, nor responsible to the affairs of the company. The cheque was issued by Qimat Rai Garg for and on behalf of the company who was in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The petitioners have been impleaded as accused in spite of the fact that no offence has been disclosed against them as is clear from a bare reading of the complaint. 3. Written statement has been filed by Haripal Singh, respondent. He has stated in the reply that the petitioner, Madhu Rai Garg, is the main accuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed for toffees. The toffees were manufactured by Upper Ganges Sugar Mills. Respondent No. 1 (Ram Kishan Rohtagi) was the manager of the company and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were the directors of the company, including the company also. 6. A complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate who summoned all the respondents for being tried for violating the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the complaint did not disclose any offence. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held as under (page 70) : So far as the manager is concerned, we are satisfied that from the very nature of his duties it can be safely inferred that he would undoubtedly be vicariously lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
