Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Chunder
ANATH BANDHU - Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
Criminal Admitted Appeal 16 Of 1952
Decided On : MAY 29, 1952
CRIMINAL LAW - Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 - Section 407 - Adulteration of mustard oil - Interpretation of 'person' in Section 3(32), Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 - Whether a limited liability company can be proceeded against under the criminal law - Held, yes, a limited liability company can be proceeded against under the criminal law unless there is anything in the definition or context of a particular section in the Statute which will prevent the application of the section to a limited company.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Anath Bandhu Samanta, was convicted under Section 407 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, for adulterating mustard oil. The prosecution alleged that the mustard oil was mixed with other oil, which was not mustard oil. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that a limited liability company, Samanta Industries Ltd., should have been proceeded against instead of him, as he was only the proprietor of the company.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a limited liability company can be proceeded against under the criminal law unless there is anything in the definition or context of a particular section in the Statute which will prevent the application of the section to a limited company. The court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the mustard oil was adulterated with any kind of oil other than mustard oil derived from mustard seed, as required under Section 407 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923.
Issues: 1. Whether a limited liability company can be proceeded against under the criminal law. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved that the mustard oil was adulterated with any kind of oil other than mustard oil derived from mustard seed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a limited liability company can be proceeded against under the criminal law unless there is anything in the definition or context of a particular section in the Statute which will prevent the application of the section to a limited company. The court relied on Section 3(32) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, which defines 'person' to include 'any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not'. 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the mustard oil was adulterated with any kind of oil other than mustard oil derived from mustard seed, as required under Section 407 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The court noted that the Analyst who was examined spoke about the saponification test and other things and said that the sample of mustard oil was mixed with other oil but he in his cross-examination did not say that the other oil was not some other kind of mustard oil but was some oil other than mustard oil which he might or might not have been able to identify.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the appeal to the Municipal Magistrate for further trial in the light of the judgment.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against a conviction of the appellant Anath Bandhu Samanta under Section 407, Calcutta Municipal Act read with Section 488 and a sentence of fine of Rs. 500 only by the Third Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta. The complaint was also against Messrs. Samanta Industries Ltd. Sri Anath Bandhu Samanta was convicted as proprietor. It has been pointed out by Mr. Debabrata Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the appellant that as it is a limited company there can be no proprietor and the person in charge of the limited company should have been proceeded against. He very fairly points out that the person in charge is the son of Anath Bandhu Samanta called Shib Kanta Samanta who is the General Secretary. His first contention is that the proceeding should have been against Shib Kanta Samanta. As the matter has to go back to the Municipal Magistrate, when the matter goes back the learned Magistrate may draw up proceedings against Shib Kanta Samanta instead of Anath Bandhu Samanta, as Shib Kanta is admitted to be the person in charge of the business.
( 2 ) MR. Chakravarty on behalf of the State has raised the point whether Samanta limited can be charged with the substantive offence or/and whether with abetment of the same Shib Babu is to be charged by the Company. His contention is that a limited company under the Indian law cannot be proceeded against under the criminal law. According to him, Samanta Industries Ltd. being a limited company cannot be proceeded against even under the Municipal law and his further contention is that although Samanta Industries Ltd. cannot be proceeded against, the law allows the abettor to be proceeded against when the principal for some reason or other cannot be brought to trial. As far as the second part of Mr. Chakravarty's argument is concerned, it can be accepted without hesitation. It is clear that in law the fact that the principal cannot be brought to trial does not prevent a charge of abetment. This has been accepted also in the Indian Penal Code in the chapter dealing with abetment.
( 3 ) THE contention of Mr. Chakravarty that under the Indian Criminal law a limited company cannot be proceeded against does not appear to me to state the correct position in law. It is said in Ratanlal's edition of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the comments on the word 'person' used in Section 11, Penal Code that it will not include a limited company and the authority is given of an English case. I have not been able to find out any Indian decision on the point. It is quite clear that if there is anything in the definition or context of a particular section in the Statute which will prevent the application of the section to a limited company certainly a limited company cannot be proceeded against. For example, rape cannot be committed by a limited company. There are heaps of other sections in which it will be physically impossible by a limited company to commit the offences. Then again it is quite clear that a limited company cannot generally be tried when mensrea is essential. Again it cannot be tried where the only punishment for the offence is imprisonment because it is not possible to send a limited company to prison by way of a sentence. If we leave these classes of cases aside, it is not clear why under the Indian law a, limited liability company cannot be proceeded against. Under the General Clauses Act as also the, Bengal General Clauses Act 'person' includes a limited liability company. There is no doubt about the same. We are dealing with a case under the Calcutta Municipal Act and Section 3 (32), Bengal General Clauses Act (Bengal Act I [l] of 1899) applies and it is definitely stated that a 'person' shall "include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not". As far as the interpretation of the word 'person' in any of the sections of the Bengal Act or of an Indian Act is concerned, unless there is any repugnancy in the context
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
