T.J. STEPHEN & ORS. versus PARLE BOTTLING CO. (P) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 22-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T.J. STEPHEN & ORS. 
'l 
v. 
,
PARLE BOTTLING CO. (P) LTD. & ORS. 
MARCH 22, 1988 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND 
MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
).._ 
• 
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947: Section 5-Prosecu-
tion of Company and its Managing Director-Examination of comp-
·-
lainant, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports-Whether 
·~ 
c necessary-Whether complaint can be quashed by referring to records 
of investigation. 
y 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 200-Prosecution of 
I· 
Company and its Managing Director under section 5 of the Imports and 
Exports (Control) Act, 1947-Examination of complainant-Whether 
D necessary and relevant. 
A complaint filed in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magis-
Irate by the appellant, Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, against 
respondents Nos. l and 2, a private limited company and its Managing 
Director for the alleged commission of an offence under s. S of the 
.r\. 
E 
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 was subsequently transferred 
to another court and cognizance of the offence alleged was takeu with-
out examining the appellant as proviso (a) of s. 200 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure was applicable to this complaint. 
.. 
An application filed by the accused persons for recall of summons 
F 
and dismissal of complaint was dismissed by the trial Magistrate. An ~ 
appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the High Court. A 
special leave application filed against the High Court's order was dis-
missed by the Supreme Court. 
An application made at the trial stage for the discharge of respon-
G 
dent No. 2, the Managing Director on the plea that there was no allega-
tion of any criminal misconduct against him and the Company-respon-
dent No. l was prepared to admit its guilt and may be appropriately 
penalised, was dismissed by the trial court. 
~ 
On appeal, the High Court quashed the process issued against 
H 
respondent No. 2 on the ground that the order of issuance of process 
' 
296 
' 
T.J. STEPHEN v. PARLE BOTTLING CO. 
297 
r 
was clearly as a result of non-application of mind by the trial Judge 
because when the process was issued against the petitioners, the Depart-
A 
• 
ment and the State had merely filed a complaint case along with list of 
' 
witnesses and documents, and none of the statements of witnesses or 
copies of documents was produced before the trial Judge, and that 
respondent No. 2 could not be prosecuted under s. 5 of the Act, as the 
.J. 
prosecution intended to charge him as principal offender alongwith 
B 
respondent No. l the Company and there were no allegations in the 
complaint that respondent No. 2 either aided or abetted in the contra-
-
vention of the licence conditions by respondent No. l Company. 
1\ ·- (-
Allowing the Department's appeal, 
I 
c 
I; 
HELD: 1. l The High Court had not cared to look into proce-
dural law applicable to the factual situation before it. If a refe-
rence had been made to section 200, Proviso (a) of Code of Criminal 
Procedure, the proceedings against respondent No. 2 could not have 
been quashed. [299G-H] 
D 
1.2 Records of investigation are not evidence in the instant case, 
and a complaint could not be quashed by referring to the investigation 
records, particularly when the petition of the complainant did allege 
facts which prima facie show commission of an offence. [300B] 
-A 
The High Court overlooked the fact that similar objections raised 
E 
earlier were rejected by the same High Court, and this decision was 
upheld by the Supreme Court, and drew a distinction between the two 
situations, by saying that records of investigation were not available on 
the earlier occasion. l300A-B) 
t-· 
1.3 The licensee was a company and a company by itself conld not 
F 
act, and has to act through someone. Since there was clear allegation 
that the Managing Director had committed the offence, acting on behalf 
of the licensee, there was no justification for quashing the proceedings 
against respondent No. 2. l300C I 
Order of the High Court is vacated. However, since t~e offence was 
committed W years back, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow G 
_;._ 
a prosecution to start and the trfal to be proceeded with at this belated 
stage even though respondent No. 2 has no equity in his favour and the 
delay has been mostly on account of his ma/a fide move. Hence the case 
against respondent No. 2 is directed to be closed forthwith. [300E, GI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.