TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (3) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e came to be framed, was filed by the Textile Commissioner, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of a complaint in writing dated 16-3-1982, from the Consumer Education and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, that Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd., Delhi, had stamped the blend composition with an incorrect and wrong percentage on their blended cloth (suiting), the samples of sorts of cloth, - i.e., black sea, dynamic and republic manufactured by the said mills were collected from Bhadani Textile, No. 351, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad, and were taken into possession vide a panchnama dated 18-9-1982. Rakesh K. Jain, trustee of the said Bhadani Textiles had directly purchased the sorts of cloth from Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. vide Bill Nos.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of sub-para (5) of para 4 of the Textile Commissioner's Notification No. CER/3/69, dated 19-9-1969, and thus committed offence under section 3 of the Act. It was prayed that both of them may be summoned, tried and punished under section 7 read with section 3 of the Act and clause 22 of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order and sub-para 5 of para 4 of the Textile Commissioner's Notification No. CER/3/69 issued thereunder. 4. On the said complaint Birla Textile (Prop. Texmaco Ltd.) and the petitioner were summoned for 28-8-1984, to face trial under section 7 by the order dated 19-5-1984, by a Metropolitan Magistrate. This order also notices that R.K. Babbar who filed the complaint, is an Assistant Director in the regional office under whose j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aforesaid order dated 3-10-1986, came to be framed on 14-10-1998. It is this charge which is under challenge in this petition. 6.The short submission advanced by Mukul Rohtagi appearing for the petitioner was that the petitioner who was occupying senior position of executive president in Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. cannot be said to be the person in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business within the meaning of section 10 of the Act and, therefore, the charge dated 14-10-1998, deserves to be set aside under section 482 of the code. In support of the submission he invited my attention to a chart (Annexure E) at page 76 of the paper book in addition to the decisions in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." (p. 70) 7. The ratio in the said case was quoted with approval in the subsequent decisions rendered by the Apex Court. 8. Applying the said test the allegations as made in aforesaid para No. 4 of the complaint do make out the offence for which charge was framed on 14-10-1998, against the petitioner. The p....