Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
G.A. SANAP, J.
Gautam Hari Singhania S/o Vijaypat Singhania – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application No. 223 of 2023
Decided On : 08-06-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : H.V. Thakur.
For the Respondent: Amit Chutke.
The necessity for specific averments in the complaint to fasten vicarious liability on the Managing Director.
Headnote:
Legal Metrology Act - Process issued under Sections 18(1), 49 and 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 2009, emphasizing the need for specific averments in the complaint to fasten vicarious liability on the Managing Director. The court highlighted the requirement for attributing a specific role to the Managing Director in the complaint and the necessity for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the provisions of law and the facts before issuing process.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant challenged the order of issuance of process for offences under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The complaint alleged violations under the Act by the company and the applicant, the Managing Director.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of issuance of process against the applicant could not be sustained as the complaint lacked specific averments attributing a role to the applicant and the Magistrate had mechanically issued the process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the correctness of the order of issuance of process, the vicarious liability of the Managing Director, and the necessity for specific averments in the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific averments in the complaint to fasten vicarious liability on the Managing Director and highlighted the requirement for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the provisions of law and the facts before issuing process.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the order of issuance of process against the applicant was quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
G.A. SANAP, J.
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
3. In this application, the applicant has questioned correctness of the order dated 19.05.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Nagpur, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process for the offences under Sections 18(1), 49 and 36 (1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2009” for short) read with Rule 18(1) and 24 of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2011” for short).
4. Shri S.N. Saraf, Inspector of Legal Metrology, Nagpur-4 Division, Nagpur filed a complaint against the company by name Raymond Limited and the applicant, being Managing Director of the said company. The remaining directors were also made accused. It is stated in the complaint that the Inspector of the Legal Metrology during his visit to the establishment of Reliance Trends Ltd. at Nagpur, noticed one cardboard package of fabric of the company Raymond Limited. The said package did not contain a declaration about the name of the commodity, name and particulars of manufacturer, packer, number of pieces etc. The Inspector drew the panchanama and seized the said package. The Inspector, Legal Metrology issued a compounding notice to the company, which was duly replied on 07.01.2014, disputing the charges. The Inspector, Legal Metrology Department filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur against the present applicant and other directors of the company alleging that the above violations constitute an offence under the Act of 2009. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur took cognizance and issued process against the applicant and other directors.
5. It is the case of the applicant that the remaining Directors of the company, against whom process was issued by the learned Magistrate, had approached this Court against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.10.2022 allowed the criminal application i.e. APL No. 829 of 2015 filed by eight directors of the company and quashed and set aside the order of issuance of process against them.
6. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the learned Magistrate mechanically passed the order of issuance of process. Learned Advocate submitted that in view of the facts stated in the complaint, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken into consideration the provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 2009. Learned Advocate submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 2009, the order of issuance of process on the basis of the averments made in the complaint cannot be sustained. Learned Advocate submitted that in order to fasten the vicarious liability on the applicant being Managing Director, there must be specific averments in the complaint attributing specific role to the applicant. Learned Advocate submitted that no person was nominated by the company in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 49 of Act of 2009 to exercise the powers on behalf of the Company. Learned Advocate submitted that there is no averment in the complaint that the applicant was in-charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Learned Advocate submitted that in absence of such averment in the complaint, the Magistrate should not have issued process against the applicant and other Directors. Learned Advocate submitted that the co-ordinate bench of this Court has quashed and set aside the order of issuance of process against the remaining Directors and, therefore, the same view is required to be taken in the case of the applicant. Learned Advocate, in order to substantiate his submission, has relied upon the decision in the case of Managing Director, Castrol India Limited vs. State of Karnataka and Another,
