Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a complaint against a company director under Section 47(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 can be maintained in the absence of specific averments that the director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business.
Analysis: Liability under the provision does not arise merely from the status of being a director. The complaint must contain clear averments showing that the person sought to be prosecuted was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the relevant time. In the absence of such foundational pleadings, the director cannot be proceeded against only on the assumption that he held office in the company.
Conclusion: The prosecution against the petitioner was not maintainable, and the complaint and all consequential proceedings were quashed as against him.
Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings could not be sustained against the petitioner for want of the necessary allegations required to fasten liability on a company director.
Ratio Decidendi: To prosecute a director for an offence by a company under the relevant statutory provision, the complaint must specifically aver that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business; mere designation as a director is insufficient.