The court has the power to stay the conviction if it may result in disqualifications related to the business affairs of the company, and such power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay the conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. Revision seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing.

3. Shri Sanjeev Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor takes notice of this revision on behalf of the State.

4. Also heard on I.A. No. 1611/2020, an application under Section 397 (1) r/w section 401 r/w section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for staying the effect, operation and conviction recorded in criminal case No. 1070/2006 vide Judgment dated 27/09/2019 as affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 156/2019 vide judgment dated 23/12/2019. By the said judgment, the petitioner stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

5. It is alleged that a truck bearing registration number BLIGA9550 was illegally transporting 612 cartoons of whiskey (Sunny Malt whiskey) as Form FL 21 was suspended and the new Form FL 22 was brought into force and the said permit was valid from 12/08/1996 till 14/08/1996 and as such Rule 12(1), 12(6), 12(7) & 19 (a) of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1996) have been violated.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Amit Agrawal contended that prima facie findings of the learned Courts below are perverse inasmuch as the transport of the foreign liquor in the truck was covered by the export permit issued under Rule 12 (5) of Rules of 1996. Thus the courts below have committed palpable error in recording the conviction under Section 34 (a) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act'), only on the ground that export permits were issued on Form FL-21 which was repealed w.e.f . 01/04/1996 by Form FL 22, although the trial court has recorded that export permits were not forged, but for alleged violation of Rule 12 (6) & (7) of Rules of 1996 concluded that in view of breach, the petitioner is being convicted. It is further submitted that import permit is required only for issuance of export permit and the export permit was valid on the date of seizure. The appellate court has affirmed the order passed by the trial court without appreciating the evidence on record. The trial court has convicted the petitioner on the basis of the findings that every offence committed by the 'company', the 'Managing Director' is responsible. According to Section 44 of the Act and the general principle of law that unless complexity and mens-rea qua an offence of the Managing Director is established, no vicarious liability can be fastened in absence of a statutory provisions fastening such liability.

7. Learned senior counsel has further contended that based on the aforesaid conviction, the Excise Commissioner has issued notices vide dated 16/10/2019 (Annexure A/1), dated 04/12/2019 (Annexure A/2) & dated 04/01/2020 (Annexure A/3). Although aforesaid notices have been replied by the petitioner, but the aforesaid conviction may eventually entail in suspension of and/or cancellations of license of M/s. Som Distilleries Private Limited, wherein the petitioner was Director till 27/09/2019. He further submits that if the license is cancelled the ensuing damage done by cancellation cannot be undone in case conviction is eventually set aside. In view of the above, if the conviction is not stayed, the petitioner being the erstwhile Chairman and Ma