A manager of a company is liable for offences committed by the company only if it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, the manager.

JUDGMENT - D.J. MOHARIR, J.:---These three appeals arise out of a judgment given in a case in which two persons were accused of contravention of the provisions of Clause 13(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 read with sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Appeal No. 69 of 1987 has been filed by the original accused Ashok Thorat, Manager of the Karad Co-operative Purchase Sale Society Ltd., Karad, District Satara. He was upon conviction, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The second accused was one Bhogilal Gulabchand Shaha, a trader of Baramati, district, Pune. He was acquitted by the trial Court and hence the State has now filed Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 1987 to take exception to his acquittal. Criminal Appeal. No. 261 of 1987 has also been filed by the State taking exception to the rather mild sentence which has been awarded to the accused No. 1 Ashok Thorat upon his conviction.

3. The prosecution case in brief, is that the Karad Co-operative Purchase and Sale Society, Karad, deals, amongst other things, in the purchase and sale of fertilizers of rather it deals mainly in the purchase and sale of fertilizers. At the material time, in the year 1984, the accused No. 1 Ashok Kisan Thorat was the Manager of this society. The accused No. 2 Bhogilal Gulabchand Shah is a person who is also a dealer in fertilizers.

4. According to the prosecution, an order for supply of fertilizer of the Sanjivani brand fertilizer was placed by the accused No. 1 in-his capacity as the manager with the accused No. 2. This order is dated 17-9-1983. The accused No. 2 had accordingly supplied the fertilizer of the given composition and of the quantity as ordered. The fertilizer so received had come to be stocked in the godown of the society. The godown is at a very short distance from the shop where the work of selling of fertilizers is done. The complainant, Jalandhar Baburao Apradh was, at the material time in 1984, a Fertilizer Inspector with his head quarters at Kolhapur. He was attached to the Kolhapur Division of the concerned Government department. On 27th January, 1984 the said Fertilizer Inspector visited the shop and the godown of the society. A stock of certain quantity of fertilizer was found stored in the godown. The stock consisted of the Sanjivani brand fertilizer of the composition 15:15:15. This was about five tons in quantity. So also Jyoti brand fertilizer of the component 15:5:5. five tons in quantity was found stored in the said godown.

5. In exercise of his powers under clause 20(1)(d) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957, the complainant took samples of both the brands of fertilizers in the prescribed manner i.e. duty complying with the rules in regard to the taking of samples. A sample each of the Sanjivani brand fertilizer as also Jyoti brand fertilizer, since each of these has a different composition, was sent to the Analytical Chemist of the Fertilizer Control Laboratories, Pune. The Chemical Analyser reported that both these samples were found to be adulterated as well as sub-standard. Upon this report, the Fertilizer Inspector took further steps. In the first instance, immediately after taking the samples, he had served a notice on the accused No. 1 to detain the entire stock of the two brands of fertilizers as it was and not to dispose of the same in any manner. He also called upon the accused No. 1, by his letter dated 12th March 1984, to furnish some information and a reply to the same was also given by the accused No.1. That letter of the Fertilizer Inspector had made a query as to the person who had supplied the two brands of fertilizer to the society at Karad. The accused No. 1 informed that it was from the accused No. 2 that the fertilizers had been purchased by the society. Some further queries were also made from the accused No. 2 and his reply was also called for. The Inspector then submitted his detailed report to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document