Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the Secretary of the society could be convicted for adulteration of milk on the evidence led, either as a person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the society's business or on proof of consent, connivance, or neglect.
Analysis: The provisions dealing with offences by a company made two distinct bases of liability. Under the first, the prosecution had to establish that the person sought to be made liable was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Under the second, liability could arise if the offence was shown to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or attributable to the neglect of, the officer concerned. The evidence showed only that the Secretary checked accounts and cash and was not in daily control of the actual business of selling milk, which was carried on by the clerk. That evidence was insufficient to satisfy the strict requirements of either limb of liability.
Conclusion: The Secretary was not proved to be liable under the section and his acquittal was correctly sustained; the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious criminal liability of an officer for an offence by a company arises only when the prosecution strictly proves the statutory conditions for responsibility, or proves consent, connivance, or neglect.