2004 Supreme(SC) 751

2004(5) Supreme 742
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.N. Variava & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
State of Punjab -Appellant
versus
Kasturi Lal & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4360/2003)
Decided on 28-7-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Naresh Bakshi and Bimal Roy Jad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P.N. Puri, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
When offence under Essential Commodities Act is committed by Company, besides the Company or/and person in charge responsible for business of Company, any officer of Company may also be prosecuted by who whose connivance or neglect such offence was committed.

Headnote:(i) Essential Commodities Act, 1955-Section 10-Offence when committed by a Company-Persons who could be held guilty and punished were the Company itself, every person who at the time of contravention committed was in charge of and was responsible to the Company and any director, manager, secretary or other officer of Company with whose consent or connivance or because of neglect offence was committed-Respondents were directors in Company-Offence found committed was that sample of vegetable oil on analysis was found to contain 78% of solvent mustard oil as against permitted limit of 20%-High Court quashed proceedings against respondents holding that there was no definite material to show that they were in charge of running of business and/or responsible therefor-High Court was not justified in quashing charge framed against respondent.

       Held : If the contravention of the order made under Section 3 is by a company, the persons who may be held guilty and punished 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 whom for short we shall describe as the person-in-charge of the company, and (3) any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company with whose consent or connivance or because of neglect attributable to whom the offence has been committed, whom for short we shall describe as an officer of the company. Any one or more or all of them may be prosecuted and punished. The company alone may be prosecuted. The person-in-charge only may be prosecuted. The conniving officer may individually be prosecuted. One, some or all may be prosecuted. There is no statutory compulsion that the person-in-charge or an officer of the company may not be prosecuted unless he be ranged alongside the company itself. Section 10 indicates the persons who may be prosecuted where the contravention is made by the company. It does not lay down any condition that the person-in-charge or an officer of the company may not be separately prosecuted if the company itself is not prosecuted. Each or any of them may be separately prosecuted or along with the company. Section 10 lists the person who may be held guilty and punished when it is a company that contravenes an order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Naturally, before the person-in-charge or an officer of the company is held guilty in that capacity it must be established that there has been a contravention of the order by the company. (Para 7)

       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 482-Exercise of power is exception and not the rule-Three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction could be exercised.

       Held : Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the Section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice. While exercising powers under the Section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complainant, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. (Para 10)