This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.C-III-57 of 2013 including the order dated 22.02.2013 whereby and whereunder, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate , Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 48 of the Jharkhand Agriculture Produce Market Act, 2000, against the petitioner and others.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Reliance Fresh Limited, who does have several outlets in the market area of Ranchi and have been doing business in each of its outlet, without there being any license granted under Rule 98 of the Jharkhand Agriculture Produce Market Rule, though as per the Rules, the Company does require to have license for each of the outlets for running business.

3. According to Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, the Company does not require to have license for each of the outlets but presently he will not be going into the matter, rather order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner, who has been described as Managing Director, is being prosecuted, without there being any allegation of being responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day affair of the Company.

4. In this respect, it was submitted that this petitioner never happened to be the Managing Director of the Company of the Reliance Fresh Limited, rather the petitioner happens to be the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Reliance Industries Limited, but since this fact is being disputed by the counsel appearing for the other side, presently he would not be taking this point that the petitioner never happens to be the Director of the Reliance Fresh Limited, but assuming that the petitioner is the Director of the Company, still he is not liable to be prosecuted in absence of any allegation that the petitioner was responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day affairs of the company and only the person responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day affair can be prosecuted in terms of the provision, as contained in explanation 48 of the Jharkhand Agriculture Produce Market Act, which provision is similar to the provision as contained in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

5. Having regard to that provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to held that the Director of the Company can be prosecuted for the offence under the Negotiable Instrument Act, only when allegation is there that the Director is responsible for or In-charge of day-to-day affairs of the company.

6. In the context of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision rendered in a case of National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 331, holding therein that unless there has been allegation that the Director was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company, he cannot be prosecuted. Under the circumstances, it was submitted that order taking cognizance dated 22.02.2013 is fit to be quashed.

7. As against this, Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, by referring to provision as contained in Section 48 of the Jharkhand Agriculture Produce Market Act, particularly the explanation to it, submits that every person i.e. Director of the Company, Manager or Secretary of the Company or firm or In-charge of the firm or the Company, can be held responsible for the commission of the offence under this Act. The said provision never does indicate that only the person, who is responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day business of the Company can be prosecuted.

8. In the context of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Section 48 of the said Act, Hindi text of which reads as follows:-

“43. Penalty. - Aisa Koi bhi Vyakti jo es Adhiniyam ya eske adhin jari kye gaye nyemo, oop-vidhiyo ya, adesho key kishi upbandh ka ullhangan karega, wah ek varse tak ke karavash ya