9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1969 for non-compliance of the direction given to the firm to produce the account books and other documents, (2). Whether the partners of the firm can be impleaded as accused in a Criminal Prosecution against the firm and (3) Whether this court is entitled to quash the proceedings against such partners who are impleaded as accused in such criminal prosecution in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. It is well settled principle of law that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where any specific remedy is provided by the Statute. Further the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised spa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can over reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal prosecution for not complying with the directions given by the Secretary of the complainant committee cabling upon the accused firm, which is a licensee in this case, through its notice ROC No. 1130/82, dated 8-10-1982 to submit monthly returns and account books relating to cotton seeds from 14-11-1974 to 30-6-1982 to ascertain and assess the market lee payable by accused firm in respect of its turn over in the notified commodities, and thereby guilty of violation of the terms and conditions of the licence and the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 70 of A.P. (AP & LS) Market Rules, 1969. From the very allegation made in the complaint, it is clear that notice was served only on the first accused-firm through its Manager. No specific al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents for inspection and to explain the contents thereof. Such records and documents of the licensed person shall be treated as confidential except for purpose of any Government Department. If any licensed person fails, without sufficient cause, to comply with the directions of the Secretary or the Director aforesaid, he shall be punishable with fine which may extent to ₹ 500/-." In the present case, the licensed person is the first accused firm and not the petitioners herein. On a reading of the aforesaid rule, it is clear from the words if any licensed person fails, that person is made personally liable for the offence committed under the rule and the liability cannot be extended to any other person merely by virtue of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners and that they are guilty of any specific act of omission which would tantamount to violation of rule 70 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Rules, 1969. 8. In State of Karnataka Vs. Pratap Chand AIR 1981 SC 872, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with a case under Sections 34 and 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act considered the question of liability of a partner of a firm in a criminal prosecution launched not only against the firm but also against the individual partners of the firm in respect of the provisions of Sec. 34 of the Act to the effect that "Where an offence under this act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was incha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability for an offence committed under the Act to any individual it has to be specifically averred in the petition of complaint that particular person is personally guilty of any act of commission or omission which tantamounts to an offence punishable under the Act." 10. Taking into consideration the fact that there was no averment in the complaint that one or any of the partners were guilty of any specific act of omission or commission which would tantamount to an offence under Section 9(1) sub-clauses (b) or (bb) of the Act, their Lordships quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the partners. 11. Accordingly I hold that the complaint in the present case taken at its face value does not make out a prima facie case aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
