TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (2) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly of M/s. Bhalakia Mills Company Limited Ahmedabad ('the company'). By an order dated 22-9-1975 the Direlr in the office of the Textile Commissioner issued a require it of the powers conferred by Clauses 20 and 21-A of the Cotton Tex Mle Control Order, 1948 ('the order') read with Textile Commissioner's (sic) canon dated 4-3-1966 directing the company to pack during ending on 31-12-1975 a quantity of controlled cloth not less than (sic) sq. meters Similarly by another requisition dated 31-12-1975, the company was directed to pack controlled cloth of not less than 733980 sq meters during the quarter-ending on 31-1-1976. The company could not (sic) required quantity during the said two quarters ending 31-12 197 31-3-1976 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....default, S.I. for one month. 3. Aggrieved by this order passed in criminal cases Nos. 3405 and 3025 of 1977, so far as it relates to the sentence, the State has preferred these two appeals, being criminal appeals No. 212 and 213 of 1978 praying that the sentence be enhanced on the ground that it is grossly inadequate and unduly lenient instead of being deterrent and that, as provided by Section 7 of the Act, some substantive sentence ought to have been awarded and not mere sentence of fine, as done by the learned Magistrate. 4. Mr. Thaker, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contends that in the instant case, no substantive sentence, at all, has been awarded; that looking to the gravity of the offence, the sentence is to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this Sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. Sub-section (2) reads (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t above. The provisions contained in Sub-section (1) came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. C.V. Parekh and Anr. 1971CriLJ418 , and the Supreme court has interpreted the same in the following terms: It was urged that the two respondents were in charge of, and were responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company and consequently, they must be held responsible for the sale and for thus contravening the provisions of Clause 5 of !he Iron and Steel (Control) Order. This argument cannot be accepted, because it ignores the first condition for the applicability of Section 10 to the effect that the person contravening the order must be a company itself. In the present case, there is no....