Directors of a company cannot be prosecuted without specific allegations against them when the company itself is not charged.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR in Crime No.9/2018-19/031E/030212 registered by the respondent - State, pending on the file of CJM, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 11 , 13(1)(a), 14(2), 15, 32, 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 .

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner – Mr.Revanasiddayya was arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid Crime No.9/2018-19/031E/030212 along with accused Nos.2 and 3. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are punishable under Sections 11 , 13(1)(a), 14(2), 15, 32, 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 .

4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to an order of this Court passed in order to point out that Crl.P.No.6678/2018 dated 02.02.2023 as against accused Nos.2 and 3, in view of quashment of criminal proceedings qua accused Nos.2 and 3, the present petitioner who is accused No.1 in the same Crime No.9/2018-19/031E/030212 would be entitled to seek parity.

5. This Court in the case of Mr.Vaibhav Verma &

another vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.6878/2018 dated 02.02.2023, quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused Nos.2 and 3 in the aforesaid crime number and held as under:

“On 11.08.2018, the Inspector of Excise, received a credible information that, a user by name Hidayat Khaleel, identified himself to be above 21 years of age, initiated a task on the dunzo mobile app to purchase from a licensed alcohol vending store and since the purchase of the alcohol is permitted to a person over the age of 21 years from a licensed store, the independent contractor in the area, Mr. Revanasiddayya G, accepted to perform the task and Mr. Revanasiddayya G. allegedly purchased the said items from Karnataka Spirit World, being the licensed third-party vendor identified by the user, and handed over the items at Sterling Apartment, Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru, the place identified by the user as the drop-off location.

2. On 12.08.2018, the Company's personnel learnt that Mr. Revanasiddayya G., the Independent Contractor in the instant task was arrested and subsequently, the company received information that the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 11 , 13 (1) (a), 14(2) and 15 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 , Sections 32 & 38A thereof.

On 13.08.2018, the Company was informed that the Company's Directors, the petitioners herein have also been arraigned as accused in the said case. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are before this Court.

3. Mr. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 & 3 submits that Dunzo Digital Private Limited is an intermediary and intermediary cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences, since they are protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. He further submits that accused Nos.2 & 3 are the Directors of the Dunzo Digital Private Limited Company, a company incorporated under the Independent Contractor Act. The company having not been arrayed as an accused, the petitioners-accused cannot be held vicariously guilty of the above said offences. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.6595/2022 disposed of on 25.08.2022.

5. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State would submit that, the accused No.1 transported liquor in excess of the prescribed limits by using Dunzo App of which accused Nos.2 & 3 are the Directors and as such the registration of the FIR does not w