Advocates:
['SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI', '', 'MOHAN KR DUBEY', 'RAJESH KR SINGH', 'SUCHENDRA PRASAD', '', 'MRINAL KANTI ROY']

to the company or firm for conduct of the business of

the company or the firm including the Director,

Manager or Secretary of the Company or firm shall be

guilty for the contravention and shall be liable to be

proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(2) 'Company' means any body, corporate and

includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

(3) 'Director' in relation to a firm, means and includes a

partner of the firm.

According to Mr. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the

Opp. Party, Hindi text of the explanation to Section 48, does stipulate that

every person of the Company whether it is Director, Manager or Secretary is

becomes responsible if the provision of the Act or Rules is contravened. But on

reading of the said provision, both the Hindi and English text, one would hardly

find any difference in the purports of the said provision, rather meaning of the

provision is the same, that is to say that the Managing Director of the

Company, Manager or Secretary, whoever is responsible for day-to-day affairs,

would be responsible for commission of the offence. Therefore, the proposition

advanced on behalf of Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel is not

acceptable that every person i.e. Director, Manager and Sachiv of the

Company would be responsible, if any of the provision of the Act or Rule is

violated, rather what comes out from its reading is that only person either

Director, Manager or Secretary, whoever is responsible for day-to-day affairs of

the company, would be liable to be prosecuted.

Here in the instant case, no allegation whatsoever is there in the

complaint that the petitioner was responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day

affair of the Company.

In that view of the matter, any prosecution against the petitioner

would be bad.

Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.C-

III-61 of 2013 including the order dated 22.02.2013, is hereby quashed so far

this petitioner is concerned.

(R.R. Prasad, J.)

Ravi/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No.1228 of 2013

Mukesh D. Ambani @ Mukesh Ambani,

Chairman & Managing Director, Reliance Industries

Limited

.…

…

Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee through

its Secretary at Pandra, Ranchi

…

…

Opp. Parties

-----

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD

-----

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate

& Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Rajesh Kr. Singh

& Mohan Kr. Dubey, Advocates

For the State

: Mr. Suchendra Prasad, APP

For the A.P.M.C.

: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate & Mrinal Kanti Roy, Adv.

-----

03/19.06.2013:

This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal

proceeding of Complaint Case No.C-III-58 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.

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.

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