9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p of section 141 of the said Act when the offence is allegedly committed by the company, without impleading the company as an accused. 3. Before I proceed further it may be noted here that the same issue was raised before this court in criminal application no. 3809 of 2009 filed by the present petitioner and said application was dismissed on 20th January, 2010, holding that the company in such a case is not a necessary party as an accused. 4. The present petition is filed by the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2693. It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Abad Ponda, appearing on behalf of the petitioner tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complaint will have to be decided on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anil Hada vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd., reported in [(2000) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 200 SC 145]. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Soni vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 1568, particularly on paras 22 and 23. 22. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Harish Dhingra v. State of Haryana and Ors. : (2001) 9 SCC 550 where this Court observed: "7. Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by this Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d otherwise work hardship to those who had trusted to its existence. Invocation of doctrine of "prospective overruling" is left to the discretion of the court to mould with the justice of the cause or the matter before the court." (Emphasis supplied) 6. I have gone through the said judgment. It will be sufficient to note that the case pending against the petitioner, filed by respondent no.1, has not reached finality and, therefore, the question of applicability of the said judgment cited by the learned Advocate Mr. Viral Shukla for respondent no.1 does not arise. It need not be stated that the case pending in the court of Magistrate will be governed by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
