Special fiscal statute prevails over general penal law; company officers need specific allegations of responsibility for criminal liability.

Allegations of misuse of F forms in inter-State sales were treated as falling within the Central Sales Tax Act, because the statutory scheme under Section 6A and the penalty mechanism in Section 10A covered false declarations and related misuse of prescribed forms; prosecution under the general penal law was therefore not sustainable on the same factual basis. The text also notes that company officers cannot be proceeded against merely by virtue of office unless the complaint specifically alleges that they were in charge of, or responsible for, the company's day-to-day business. In the absence of such an allegation, vicarious criminal liability could not be fastened under the Indian Penal Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allegations relating to use of F forms in inter-State sales attracted prosecution under the Central Sales Tax Act rather than the general penal law; (ii) Whether the petitioners, being officers of the company, could be proceeded against in the absence of an that they were responsible for or in charge of the company's day-to-day business.

Issue (i): Whether the allegations relating to use of F forms in inter-State sales attracted prosecution under the Central Sales Tax Act rather than the general penal law.

Analysis: The impugned allegations related to misuse of forms connected with inter-State transfer of goods and claimed exemption under the Central Sales Tax framework. The statutory scheme under Section 6A and the penal consequence under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 covered the field where false declarations or misuse of prescribed forms were alleged. In that situation, prosecution under the general law for the same factual foundation was impermissible where the special enactment provided the applicable mechanism and penalty.

Conclusion: The allegations were held to fall within the Central Sales Tax Act and not to justify prosecution under the general penal law.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners, being officers of the company, could be proceeded against in the absence of an allegation that they were responsible for or in charge of the company's day-to-day business.

Analysis: The complaint did not allege that the petitioners were in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Criminal liability could not be fastened on them merely because they held offices in the company. In the absence of a specific statutory basis for vicarious liability, prosecution of such officers under the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained on the facts alleged.

Conclusion: The petitioners could not be prosecuted on a vicarious-liability basis, and the refusal to discharge them was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The orders refusing discharge were set aside and the petitioners were discharged from the case, resulting in allowance of the application.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual allegations are governed by a special penal provision in a fiscal statute, prosecution under the general penal law is not sustainable, and in the absence of a specific statutory basis, vicarious criminal liability cannot be fastened on company officers merely by virtue of their designation.

---