9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Company. The Appellant also made payment in intervals. However, by 24.12.2007 an amount of Rs. 72,22,037/- remained outstanding on the Appellant. As such, a request was made to clear the outstanding amount. On such request, in the month of December, 2007, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid. On 27.02.2008, a written request was sent by the Respondent-company for clearing the outstanding dues and submitting 'C Form as required by the Sales Tax Department. The Appellant in first week of March, 2008, handed over cheques on different dates in total amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and promised that the entire outstanding dues will be cleared up before 20.4.2008. Seven cheques bearing numbers 678339 dated 21.3.2008, 678340 dated 24.3.2008, 678341 dated 26.3.2008, 678342 dated 29.3.2008, 678343 dated 3.4.2008, 678344 dated 8.4.2008 and 678345 dated 14.04.2008 drawn on Nariman Point Branch of Central Bank of India, Mumbai amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/- which had been issued by the Appellant in favour of the opposite party were presented before its banker Andhra Bank, Sambalpur on 18.4.2008 for encashment. The bank informed that the cheques could not be honoured due to stop payment on the accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the accused Respondent therein could be convicted on the basis of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act under which if the person contravening an order made Under Section 3 is a company, every person, who, at the time when contravention was committed, was in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the Company shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded. 7. Having noticed the aforesaid submission, this Court observed as follows: "Learned counsel for the Appellant, however, sought conviction of the two Respondents on the basis of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act under which, if the person contravening an order made Under Section 3 (which covers an order under the Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956), is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. It was urged that the two Respondents were in charge of, and were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation-For the purpose of this section,- (a) "company" means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm." The Section appears to our mind to be plain enough. If the contravention of the order made Under Section 3 is by a Company, the persons who may be held guilty and punished are (1) the Company itself (2) every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company whom for short we shall describe as the person-in-charge of the Company, and (3) any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the Company with whose consent or connivance or because of neglect attributable to whom the offence has been committed, whom for short we shall describe as an officer of the Company. Any one or more or all of them may be prosecuted and punished. The Company alone may be prosecuted. The person-in-charge only may be prosecuted. The conniving officer may individually be prosecuted. One, some or all may be prosecuted. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sibility on the Respondents. The sentences underscored by us clearly show that what sought to be emphasised was that there should be a finding that the contravention was by the Company before the accused could be convicted and not that the Company itself should have been prosecuted along with the accused. We are therefore clearly of the view that the prosecutions are maintainable and that there is nothing in Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act which bars such prosecutions." 9. In Aneeta Hada's case (supra) the question that arose for determination by this Court was whether an authorized signatory of a company would be liable for prosecution Under Section 138 of the Act without the company being arraigned as an accused. As there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges regarding the interpretation of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act reference was made to the larger Bench of three Judges. In the said case, this Court noticed the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh's case and the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal's case while interpreting Section 138 and 141 of the Act, this Court observed as follows: "53. It is to be borne in mind that Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
