SUBHANKAR BISWAS versus SANDEEP META

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 07-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 799 
SUBHANKAR BISWAS · 
A 
v. 
SANDEEP META 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2006) 
APRIL 07, 2011 
B 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 - s. 19 -
Complaint under, against Chairman of the Company and c 
appellant, then Deputy General Manager, alleging violation 
of rr. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 23 of the Rules - However, the 
averments in the complaint not identifying as to who was the 
person responsible and incharge of the affairs of the Company 
- Meanwhile, application filed for the compounding of the 
D 
offence - Appropriate authority directing compounding of 
offenc·e but the order could not be carried out - Application 
u/s. 482 Cr.P. C. filed by the Chairman of the Company and 
the appellant, then Deputy General Manager - High Court 
quashing the proceedings qua the Chairman - On appeal, 
E 
held: There is no distinction between the case of the 
Chairman and the appellant - High Court did not bring out 
any distinction between the two - In prosecutions in such like 
cases no roving enquiry is permissible and an obligation rests 
on the prosecution to give details so that the trial can be 
F 
proceeded against the persons responsible -
Therefore, 
direction issued to quash the proceedings against the 
appellant in all cases - Standards of Weights and Measures 
(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - rr. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 
23. 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1129 of 2006 etc. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2005 of the High 
799 
H 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 4 S.C.R. 
A Court at Calcutta in CRR No. 2086 of 2004. 
WITH 
Crl. A. Nos. 1086, 1087, 1088 & 1089 of 2008. 
B 
Pradeep Ghosh, Parijat Sinha, Reshmi Rea Singh, Mrinal 
Kanti Mandal, Vikram Ganguly, S.C. Ghosh for the Appellant. 
Avijit Bhattacharjee, Sarbani Kar for the Respondent. 
c 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
This order will dispose of all the appeals referred to above. 
The facts have been taken from criminal appeal No. 1129/ 
D 2006. The matter arises out of a complaint under Section 19 
of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. In the 
complaint it has been urged that Rules 2,4,6, 8, 9 and 23 of 
the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged 
Commodities) Rules 1977 had been violated. In the meantime 
E the appellant also filed an application for the compounding of 
the offence and the appropriate authority directed that the 
offence be compounded. This however could not go through for 
the reason that as per the allegation several similar offences 
had been committed by the Company within three years. An 
F application under Section 482 was thereafter filed by the 
Chairman of the Company Mr. H.B.Lal and the appellant 
Subhankar Biswas the then Deputy General Manager raising 
several pleas, one of being based on Section 7 4 of the Act and 
the averments made in the complaint which did not identify as 
G to who was the person responsible and incharge of the affairs 
of the Company. It was pointed out that in the complaint the 
bare language of Section 74 had been reproduced without 
naming any body as being responsible for the day-to-day affairs 
of the Company. The averment made in the complaint which is 
H relevant to the matter is reproduced below: 
• 
SUBHANKAR BISWAS v. SANDEEP META 
801 
"That the persons committed this offence are companies. 
A 
So every person at the time of offence was in charge of 
and was responsible to the companies for the business 
of the companies as well as the companies shall be liable 
to be proceeded against the punished accordingly as per 
section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 
B 
1976." 
It was accordingly argued in the High Court that the 
complaint itself was not maintainable as it did not indicate as 
to who was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the 
Company. After hearing both sides the High Court by its order 
C 
of 24th March 2005 quashed the proceedings qua the 
Chairman Mr. H.B.Lal with the following observations: 
"Therefore in the absence of any specific averment 
regarding the role played by petitioner No.1 M.8.Lal, who 
D 
is the Chairman of the Corporation and there is nothing to 
indicate that he was in charge of and responsible to the 
Corporation relating to its day-to-day affairs of the 
Corporation at the time of commission of the alleged 
offence, the present application deserves to be allowed in 
E 
part and the pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.