TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, 1983CriLJ159 and U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery, both having been rendered by two-Judge Benches. The necessity to resolve the conflict is to discern the vicarious liability, if any, of officers of a Company, being prosecuted under Special Acts where the Company is the offender. 2. Before us is a complaint in which the Company and its Directors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely. Necessarily, pre-charge evidence assumes importance. The complainant will have to put his side of the case as given out in the complaint and the persons summoned would have to put on the record all what is material to extricate themselves out. In any case, the crucial time would be when framing charge whereat a decision in that respect would be required to be made by the court. Presently, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
