1990 (2) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tributor respectively. A-3 and A-4 are Directors of the Manufacturing Company. A-5 is the Chemist of the Manufacturing Company. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition as regards A-1 and A-2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that A-3 to A-5 cannot be held responsible as there is no specific allegation against them. That contention is based on Section 33 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act provides that whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in-charge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be gu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accused because under his supervision the manufacturing process goes on. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no allegation in the complaint regarding the part played by the Chemist. But sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act says that if it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or attributable to neglect on the part of any officer of the company, he is responsible for the offence. So the question whether this product which does not conform to the standard has been manufactured either with the consent or connivance of or attributable to neglect on the part of the Chemist is a matter which has to be proved during the course of trial by necessary evidence. If it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ering the question whether the Chemist can be said to be a person in-charge of the business of the company under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act. But the further question whether he can be made liable under sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act on the ground that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or attributable to neglect on his part was not considered in that case. Therefore with great respect I am unable to follow the decision of my learned Brother Lakshmana Rao, J. referred to above that the Chemist cannot be found responsible for the offence because as stated above that decision considered the question only from the angle whether he is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X