9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of Section 9(1)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act there is vicarious liability on the officers in-charge of the company who, if the company is found to be guilty, shall also deem to be guilty of the offences charged against the company, therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings. But on the facts of this case, that argument cannot be entertained because thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same offence and in their absence company alone cannot be tried for an offence under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act - Decided against Revenue. - 759 of 1996 - - - Dated:- 5-11-2003 - N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh, JJ. [Order]. - A complaint was filed against the respondent-Company and two others who were Director and Assistant Manager of the said Company as officers-in-charge of the affair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs against the said company cannot be maintained. The High Court accepted the said contention of the petitioner and quashed the proceedings against the said company. Being aggrieved of the said order of the High Court the complainant is in appeal before us. 2. It is contended that in view of Section 9(1)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act there is vicarious liability on the officers in-charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, therefore, even otherwise the complainant could not have relied on the said Section. It is not necessary for us to go into this question since the Director and Assistant Manager were once discharged and that discharge having become final they cannot be tried once again for the very same offence and in their absence company alone cannot be tried for an offence under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
