TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (3) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant who is Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay alleging commission of offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 by the respondents 1 and 2. The said case got transferred to the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Estate, Bombay and was numbered as 82/S of 1983. The Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company with its registered office at Bombay and the Respondent No. 2 is its Managing Director. To this complaint, proviso (a) of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was applicable. Therefore, cognizance was taken of the offence alleged without examining the appellant. On 17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pies of documents were produced before the Trial Judge. The complainant's verification statement is also not recorded. As such the order of issuance of process is clearly a result of non-application of mind by the trial Judge. Such order would mean that merely. on filing a complaint the process could be issued. It would be unjust to the accused if process is issued against him by the Magistrate without first satisfying himself about the nature of the case and whether there exists sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case. Since this is not done, then in the instant case the process issued against petitioner No. 2 (Managing Director) is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Without short circuiting the other grounds it must be poi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the High Court suggests that the learned Judge wanted to draw a distinction between them and now by saying that the records of investigation had not then been available. Records of investigation are not evidence in this case and a complaint could not be quashed by referring to the investigation records particularly when the petition of the complainant did allege facts which prima facie show commission of an offence. The learned Judge did note the fact that the licensee was a Company but lost sight of the fact that a Company by itself could not act. Obviously the Company has to act through some one. In the petition of the complainant there was clear allegation that the Managing Director had committed the offence acting on behalf of the lic....