TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tta, filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas, against the petitioners and the opposite party no. 3 alleging inter alia, that on November 10, 1974 when officers of the Centralised Preventive Organisation visited the factory of the company at Boral and verified the stock of aluminium pipes lying in the approved store-room, he detected a shortage of 30,688.5 metres of pipes of different sizes valued at Rs. 10,78,498.57 p. and involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,31,399.37 p. It was further alleged that when on November 11, 1974 the officers of the said organisation searched the factory and the head office of the company, they found in the factory that 38,998.5 metres of aluminium pipe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r office were personally responsible for the acts of commission or omission for which they have been sought to be made liable under Section 9 of the Act. Mr. Ghose has pointed out that apart from what has been stated in paragraph 10 there is not a single sentence anywhere else in the petition of complaint which seeks to implicate the petitioners or the opposite party No. 3. Mr. Dilip Kr. Dutt, learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite party No. 3, has adopted the arguments of Mr. Ghose. 5. Mr. Anjan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Superintendent of Central Excise, namely, the opposite party No. 1, has argued that the petition of complaint read as a whole makes it clear that the petitioners and the opposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the petitioners and the opposite party No. 3 they have been sought to be implicated by the averments made in paragraph 10 which is as follows :- "That the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 inasmuch as they were responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offences were committed." On a reading of the aforesaid paragraph it is apparent that the petitioners and the opposite party No. 3 were sought to be made liable by virtue of an assumption that they were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the relevant time when the offences were committed. There is no averment that the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
