TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any. The 8th accused Shri G.P. Goenka, has filed this revision case under Section 482 Cr. P.C. questioning the order of the learned Judge. 2. To appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to state a few material facts. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd., (A-1) is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act and obtained licences under Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act read with Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, in Form L.4 No. 1/78-80 (Cigarettes) for the manufacture of cigarettes in their factory at Biccavolu. A-1 was having other licences to manufacture other commodities also. Therefore, A-1 company got their cigarette factory at Boccavolu renamed as "M/s. Duncan Tobacco Company- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That was, as already mentioned, rejected by the lower Court. 4. Shri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that even assuming that A-2 company, viz., Duncan Tobacco Company was a unit or a Division of M/s. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and others after 1984, A-1 company has nothing to do with A-2 company and on the other hand A-3 company is the successor company of A-2 and A-8 can in no manner represent A-2 company. The case is only at the stage of service of summons. If some of the documents are examined, it becomes clear that Duncan Tobacco Company (A-2) was a unit of A-1 company and A-1 company, though registered as a separate company in the year 1979, it was named as Duncan Tobacco Company, a Division of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 company is individually shown as an accused in the complaint and therefore, the same has to be represented by some concerned person who was and who is in charge of over-all affairs of the company. In that view of the matter, it has to be noted that A-2 company, as described in all the records, was a division of A-1 company of which A-8 was the chairman during the relevant period viz., upto 1-4-1984 (i.e., till which date it was in existence). 5. For all these reasons, it is just and proper that A-8 should represent A-2 company during the trial. 6. Shri C. Padmanabha Reddy however submits that all the records and the relevant registers are in the custody of A-3 company and it may not be possible for A-8 while representing A-2 company t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
