2008 (9) TMI 1043

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. 3. This Tribunal has received a letter dated 24-7-2008 from Haresh Mehta & Co. stating that the appellant has already paid the penalty amount of Rs.1,000 and requesting this Tribunal to decide the appeal on merit on the grounds stated in the Memo of Appeal. In other words, the appellant does not want to be present or being represented for personal hearing. Accordingly, the appeal papers have been taken up for consideration. 4. Heard Shri AC. Singh, DLA for the respondent and perused the appeal record. The main crux of the contention of the appellant is that there is no iota of evidence that the appellant was in charge of export business of the noticee company M/s Seven Seas Marketing Pv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sibility observed as under :- "To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a person can be subject to criminal process. A liability under section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a company, the principal accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the act contains the requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That respondent falls within parameters of section 141 has to be spelled out The position of a Managing ....