IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that vicarious liability of officers in charge of a company requires specific averments and proof of their responsibility for the conduct of the company's business. It also emphasizes the importance of compliance with fire safety measures as per the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The Additional Director General and Chairman, Fire Safety Audit Committee, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services lodged a complaint dated 23.12.2011 against the petitioner being a staff of Kothari Medical Centre situated at 8/3, Alipore Road, Kolkata-700027 for violation of the provisions enunciated in Section 11(C) of West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 with up to date amendment. The complaint precisely stated the aforesaid Kothari Medical Centre to initiate functioning without obtaining of N.O.C. from the Fire Service Department.

2. On an inspection on 20.12.2011 infringement of the provisions of Section 11(C) of West Bengal Fire Services Act as aforesaid was noticed. Fire prevention and Fire Safety measures to combat the hazards associated with the aforesaid medical centre could not be established.

3. The specified violations entailed cognizable offence punishable under Section 11L and 11J of the aforesaid Act. Accordingly, the complaint was lodged against the petitioner and the other appropriate authorities of the said Medical Centre in the interest of public policy.

4. Based on the above complaint Alipore PS Case No. 388 dated 23.12.2011 was registered for investigation. On completion of the investigation the police authorities submitted a Charge Sheet being No. 73 dated 07.04.2012 implicating the petitioner along with another under Section 11 (J)/11(L) of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950. Subsequently warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner was subsequently granted bail vide order dated 18th April, 2013 passed by the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore.

5. The instant criminal revisional application has been filed to seek quashing of the impugned proceedings of C.G.R. Case No. 4730/2011 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore arising out of Alipore PS Case No. 338 dated 23.12.2011 along with the order dated 11th April, 2013 passed therein.

6. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted, the petitioner had been an employee of Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. since 13.03.89 which had its registered office at C-4, Gillander House, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta-700012. The petitioner was never associated with the affairs of the Kothari Medical Centre as aforesaid. It was further submitted that Chapter (III)(A) of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950, a subsequent legislation which came into effect from 01.11.1996 could not be invoked in the instant case.

7. It was further contended in order to prove violation of the provisions of Section 11C of the said Act, 1950, the building in question must be a high risk building, duly designated by the Government within the meaning of clause (hb) of Section 2 of the said Act. In case the building existed prior to 01.11.1996 (the date on which Chapter IIIA was introduced into the said Act), it was incumbent on the part of the Investigating Authority to issue a notice, in terms of Section 35 of the said Act to be duly served upon the delinquent owner/occupier. However such notice was not issued. The First Information Report and the Charge Sheet of the proceedings as impugned revealed both the essential requirements with regard to violation of Section 11C of the said Act had not been complied with by the Investigating agency and as such, the accusation of an offence under Section 11J of the said Act committed by the petitioner was unsustainable.

8. It was further submitted that this Hon’ble Court in the case of Prem Swarup Sharma and Another vs. State of West Bengal, (2009) 1 C. Cr. L.R. (Cal) 424 dealt the question of commission of offence under Section 11J of the said Act vis-a-vis Section 35 of the said Act. It was held that the purpose of service of notice under Section 35 of the said Act was to intimate the owner or occupier about the legal necessity to comply with the direction contained therein and unless such notice was served,