TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Ramesh Saboo and Saurabh Agrawal For Respondents: Devendra Chaubey, Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the order dated 29/12/2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 3171/2014. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that a complaint has been filed against the applicant for an offence under Sections 3(zz)(iii), 26(2)(i) r/w Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on the allegation that the applicant is a nominee of Satya Sai Agroils Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) which is carrying on business of manufacture of Soya Oil, Soya Badi etc. and the factory is situated at Sanchi Road, Vidisha. On 23/07/2014, the Food Safety Officer inspected the Company and took the sample of Fortune Soya Chunks, manufactured and packed by the Company. A panchnama was prepared. The sample was sent to Food Analyst and according to the report of Food Analyst, the sample was found to be unsafe under Sections 3(zz)(iii) and 26(2)(i) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ender any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation: For the purpose of this section,-- (a) company means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) director in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Tours and Travels (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 : 2012 (3) Supreme 416 has held as under: 25. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 11(1), in Para 35, it has been laid down that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances may be such that the knowledge of the agent must be imputed to the body corporate. Counsel for the respondents says that, although a body corporate may be capable of having an intention, it is not capable of having a criminal intention. In this particular case the intention was the intention to deceive. If, as in this case, the responsible agent of a body corporate puts forward a document knowing it to be false and intending that it should deceive, I apprehend, according to the authorities that Viscount Caldecote, L.C.J., has cited, his knowledge and intention must be imputed to the body corporate. 29. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the decision in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. wherein it has been held that in all jurisdictions across the world governed by the rule of law, companies and corporate houses can no longer claim immunity from criminal prosecution on the ground that they are not capable of possessing the necessary mens rea for commission of criminal offences. It has been observed that the legal position in England and the United States has now been crystallised to leave no manner of doubt that the corporation would be liable for cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to. 34. Lord Asquith, in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, had expressed his opinion as follows: (AC pp. 132-33) If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it.... The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. 35. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar the majority in the Constitution Bench have opined that legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose. 36. In Hira H. Advani v. State of Maharashtra, while dealing with a proceeding under the Sea Customs Act, especially sub-section (4) of Section 171-A wherein an enquiry by the Customs Authority is referred to, and the language employed therein, nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us herein-above. 4. In the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane, 2015 (3) Supreme 77: (2015) 12 SCC 781, it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- 11. In the case at hand as the complainant's initial statement would reflect, the allegations are against the Company, the Company has not been made a party and, therefore, the allegations are restricted to the Managing Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the allegations are against the Company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened under certain statutes. It has been so held by a three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. in the context of the Negotia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
