TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Thakorlal Hiralal Co. at premises No. 9, B.B.D Bag (East) Calcutta. Pursuant to that search some contraband primary gold and diamonds, for which proper account was not found to have maintained and whose possession could not be satisfactorily explained, were seized. The same were reasonably believed to be smuggled goods. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the employees of the firm and the accused No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the alleged possession by the company, the petitioner cannot be vicariously made liable. There is no independent allegation against the petitioner and the partners. The case of State of Madras v. C. Earekh in AIR 1971 S.C. 447 has been cited to show that the Manager and Director of a company cannot be convicted by applying Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, because liability of the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir omissions and commissions and so all of them are liable to be penalised. The facts of the State of Madras case are different. Reference may be made to the decision of Amarnath v. State of Haryana - AIR 1977 S.C. 2185 to show that Mr. Justice Fazal Ali has stated that when a matter has touched important rights or liabilities of a party, it is not an interlocutory order. An order to summon a pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. 3 to 5. But those allegation are absolutely vague. There is no independent allegation against those three persons that they were in charge of the affairs of that firm or they were in possession of such gold, diamonds etc. In the absence of such allegation in the petition of complaint it must be held that the ingredients of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act and Section 85 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
