1957 (9) TMI 97 - HC - Central Excise

Secretary of Co-op Milk Society Acquitted - Lack of Evidence

The Public Prosecutor Versus R. Karuppian

The Public Prosecutor Versus R. Karuppian - AIR 1958 Mad 143, 1958 CriLJ 527, (1958) IMLJ 20 Issues:Acquittal of the second appellant (accused 3) by the Sessions Judge, Conviction of accused 2 and the Co-operative Society, Interpretation of Section 17 (1) and (2) of the Central Act 37 of 1954, Evidence required for prosecution under Section 17, Responsibility of the Secretary in the conduct of the business of the Society.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal against the acquittal of the Secretary of a Co-operative Milk Supply Society (accused 3) by the Sessions Judge, despite the conviction of the Society and another accused for adulteration of milk. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 17 (1) and (2) of the Central Act 37 of 1954, which holds individuals responsible for offences committed by a company. Section 17 (1) states that individuals in charge of the company's business are deemed guilty of an offence committed by the company. However, there is a proviso allowing individuals to prove lack of knowledge and due diligence. Section 17 (2) deems individuals guilty if an offence is committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect.The judgment highlights the necessity for the prosecution to establish under which part of Section 17 the case is being pursued. If under Clause (1), evidence of the person responsible for the conduct of the business is crucial. If under Clause (2), evidence of consent, connivance, or neglect is required. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the Secretary (accused 3) was responsible for the business conduct of the Society. The evidence presented indicated that the Secretary mainly oversaw cash transactions and accounts, while the day-to-day business operations were managed by a clerk. As the Secretary's role was limited to oversight and not direct management, he could not be deemed responsible for the offence under Section 17 (1).Therefore, the judgment confirms the acquittal of the Secretary (accused 3) but disagrees with the lower appellate court's reasoning. It emphasizes that the prosecution did not meet the required standard of proof for conviction under Section 16 (1) due to insufficient evidence regarding the Secretary's role in the business conduct of the Society. The appeal against the acquittal is dismissed based on this analysis, emphasizing the importance of establishing individual responsibility under the relevant legal provisions.