2013 (8) TMI 1129 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to entertain a revision for enhancement of sentence.
2. Prosecution of Directors and other responsible persons without arraying the Company as an accused.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Limited.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to entertain a revision for enhancement of sentence:

When these matters came up for hearing, a doubt arose whether the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2005, seeking enhancement of sentence. Therefore, a question was referred for decision by a Division Bench: "Whether the Court of Sessions has got power to entertain a revision for enhancement of sentence?" A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.04.2012, answered the question affirmatively, stating, "The Court of Sessions has got power to entertain a revision for enhancement of sentence."

2. Prosecution of Directors and other responsible persons without arraying the Company as an accused:

The petitioners argued that as per Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, when a person committing an offence is a Company, prosecution against the Directors and other persons responsible for the Management is not maintainable in the absence of the Company being arrayed as an accused. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Limited, which held that a Company cannot be indicted without being arrayed as an accused and without affording sufficient opportunity to the Company to defend the charges. The Court agreed with this argument, stating that in the absence of the Company being arrayed as an accused, the prosecution of the petitioners, who are only the Director and then Vice-President, cannot be sustained.

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Limited:

The Court noted that the principles of fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India apply to artificial juristic persons as well. It held that for punishing an accused under the Industrial Disputes Act by invoking Section 32, it is necessary that the Company should be arrayed as an accused. The Court emphasized that recording a finding of guilt against the Company without affording it an opportunity to defend would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court concluded that the judgment in Aneeta Hada's case applies, and the conviction against the petitioners cannot be sustained in the absence of the Company being arrayed as an accused.

Final Order:

The Crl.R.C.Nos. 8 and 9 of 2009 are allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.10403 of 1995, dated 18.08.2003, and confirmed in Crl.A.No.289 of 2003, dated 06.02.2008, are set aside. The order of enhancement of sentence of fine imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai, in Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2005 is also set aside. The petitioners in Criminal Revision cases as well as the other accused, who have not preferred appeal or revision, are also hereby acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioners and the other accused shall be refunded to them. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No. 8025 of 2008 is dismissed.