LexSHEORATAN AGARWAL & ANOTHER versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. • ' 719 SHEORATAN AGARWAL & ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH September 12, 1984 (0. CHiNNAPPA REDDY AND D.P. MADON, JJ.] Essential Commodities Act. 1955-Section JO-Interpretation of-Company contravening an order made under s.3-Whether the person in-charge or an officer of the company at the relevant period can be prosecuted separately without pro- secuting the company. The two appellants, who were the Managing Director and the Production- Manager of a public limited company, were prosecuted by the respondent for alleged violations by their company of clauses 2 (c) (i) and 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Pulses. Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 and clause 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Price Exhibition and Price Control) Order, 1977 read with sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodi- ties Act (the Act, for short). The appellants moved the High Court under sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the procee- dings against them on the ground that they could not, in Jaw, be prosecuted un- less the company itself was prosecuted. The High Court over-ruled this con- tention and hence these appeals by special leave. Dismissing the appeals, HELD : I. Section 10 of the Act lists the persons who may be held guilty and punished when it is a company that contravenes an order made under Section 3 of the Act. They are : (1) the company itself (2) 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, that is, the person-in-charge of the company, and (3) any director, manager, secretary or other officers of the company with whose consent or connivance or because of neglect attributable to whom the offence has been committed, that is, an officer of the company. [722C-FJ 2. It is clear from the language of Section 10 that there is no statutory com- pulsion that the person.in-charge or an officer of the company may not be pro- secuted unless he be ranged alongside the company itself. Each or any of them may be separately prosecuted or along with the company if there is a contravention of an order made:under Section 3 of the Act by tho:: company. A B c D E F G lt does not lay down any concUtion that the person-ill-charge Ur an officer of ff A B 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 1 s.c.R. the company 1nay not be separately prosecuted if the con1pany itself is not prosecuted. Therefore the prosecutions of the appellants are maintainable and that there is nothing in Section 10 of the Act which bars such prosecution [722 G,H, 723FJ State of Madras v C.V. Parekh and another, AIR 1971 S.C. 447, State of Gujarat v. Chandulal Jethalal, (1980) 21 Gujarat Law Reporter 353, Mirji Brothers Oil Mill v. State of f(arnataka, 1980 (2) Knrnataka Law Journal 35 and Santi Kumar Agarwala v. State, ILR. 1975 Cuttack 86, distinguished. Durgamata Oil Mill v. Calcutta Municipality, 1978 Cr!. L.J. 222, D.K. Jain v. State, AIR 1965 All. 525 and Chander Bhan v. The State, 1975 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration, held inapplicable. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. D E F G H 452-453 of 1984. Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the !st July, 1983 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1983 and Misc. Cr!. Case No. 366 of 1983. S.T. Desai, M.S. Ganesh and S.C. Dagadiya, for the appellants. Ravindra Bana and A.K. Sanghi for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C!uNNAPPA REDDY, J. Special Leave granted. A complaint was laid by the State of Madhya Pradesh through the Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, Dewas against the two petitioners Sheoratan Agarwal and Raghunandanlal Chaturvedi, the Managing Director and the Production Manager of M/s 5-S Limited, a public Limited Company with its registered office at Calcutta, for alleged violations of clause 2 (c)(i) and 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 and clause 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Price Exhibition and Price Control) Order. I 977 read with sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioners moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the Proceedings against them on the ground that they could not, in law, be pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.