Company must be accused with director in criminal cases for fair trial.

Mr. Arvind Mediratta Versus The State of Karnataka through The Senior Labour Inspector

Mr. Arvind Mediratta Versus The State of Karnataka through The Senior Labour Inspector - TMI Issues:
1. Maintainability of criminal revision petitions under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Legality of the impugned orders taking cognizance of offences against the petitioner as an individual Director without involving the Company as an accused.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The maintainability of criminal revision petitions under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the revision petitions were maintainable as the impugned orders deciding to summon the accused were quasi-final and not interlocutory. He cited a Supreme Court judgment and a previous order of the Court to support this argument. The counsel highlighted that Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. provides a statutory remedy available to the petitioner for challenging such orders.

Issue 2: Legality of the impugned orders taking cognizance of offences against the petitioner as an individual Director without involving the Company as an accused.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the orders taking cognizance of offences against the petitioner as an individual Director were illegal. He argued that if a corporate body is to be prosecuted, the entity itself must be made an accused, and only then can the directors be proceeded against. Citing relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the counsel emphasized the necessity of arraigning the company as an accused. The counsel further pointed out that the complaints filed against the petitioner were mechanical in nature, lacking proper application of mind by the Magistrate.

The High Court Government Pleader, however, supported the impugned orders, stating that the complaints were correctly filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and signed by the authorized officer. The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner, being a Director of the Company, was rightfully arraigned as the respondent. Additionally, the Government Pleader suggested that the petitioner should raise defenses before the Magistrate instead of directly approaching the Court.

In the judgment, the Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and analyzed the relevant legal principles. The Court referred to a Supreme Court case and a previous judgment by the same Court, emphasizing the necessity of involving the corporate entity as an accused before proceeding against individual directors. The Court noted that the complaints filed against the petitioner as an individual Director, without making the Company a party, were not maintainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, set aside the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, and granted liberty to the State to take fresh legal action in accordance with the law.