TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The third accused is the petitioner. He along with K. Subramanyam and Co., and K. Arumugasamy, were charged for offences punishable under sections 276C(1)(i) and 277 of the Income-tax Act and also under sections 193, 196 and 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code. In para 3 of the complaint, there is a reference that the second and third accused are responsible to the first accused firm f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly . . . " Therefore, there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner at the time of the commission of the offence was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. What is alleged in the complaint is that the second and third accused are responsible to the first accused firm for the conduct of the business. The complaint does not show that at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion 'a person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of a company mean'? It will be noticed that the 'company' includes a firm or other association, and the same test must apply to a director-in-charge and a partner of a firm in charge of a business. It seems to us that in the context a person 'in charge' must mean that the person should be in overall control of the day-to-day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the business except that they are mere directors. None of them is managing director, and the managing director, if any, has not been impleaded as an accused. In these circumstances, the prosecution against the petitioners, who are mere directors, is not sustainable." In the instant case, there is no specific allegation as against the petitioner in the complaint itself for invoking the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
