Quashing of criminal complaint against directors refused where specific averments linked them to the alleged excise evasion.

Allegations that company directors were in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business, and that they knew of and connived in the alleged excise duty evasion, were held sufficient to justify continuation of the criminal complaint. At the quashing stage, the Court applied the settled principle that it cannot assess the accused's probable defence or weigh the prosecution case, because the adequacy of materials for trial is ordinarily for the trial court. It further noted that no hard and fast rule bars prosecution of directors where specific averments connect them to the offending conduct, and no ground for quashing was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint disclosed sufficient allegations against the petitioners, who were directors of the company, to justify continuation of proceedings and whether the High Court should exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint contained specific allegations that the petitioners were Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Deputy Chairmen, and Directors who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business and were aware of the alleged evasion of excise duty. It also alleged supervision, guidance, control, connivance, and common intention in relation to the clearance of cigarette packets in violation of the conditions of the concessional notification and the provisions governing excise duty. The Court applied the settled principle that, at the stage of quashing, it cannot assess the probable defence of the accused or weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case, and that the sufficiency of materials for trial is ordinarily for the trial court to decide. It held that each case depends on its own allegations and that there was no hard and fast rule barring prosecution where specific averments against directors are made.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient allegations to proceed against the petitioners, and no ground for quashing was made out.

---