1988 (3) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The said case was got transferred to the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Estate, Bombay, and was numbered as 82/S of 1983. Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company with its registered office at Bombay and respondent No. 2 is its managing director. To this complaint, clause (a) of the first proviso to section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was applicable. Therefore, cognizance was taken of the offence alleged without examining the appellant. On January 17, 1983, an application was filed on behalf of the two accused persons for recall of the summonses and dismissal of the complaint. On May 12, 1983, the learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 exist 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 pointed out that perusal of the complaint and in particular page 23 of the complaint shows that the prosecution intends to charge petitioner No. 2 as th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad 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 someone. In the petition of the complainant, there was a clear allegation that the managing director had committed the offence acting on behalf of the licensee. If the complainant's petition had been properly scrutinized, the second ground advanced in the impugned order for quashing the proceed....