1994 (3) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 9(1)(i) of the Central Excise & Salt Act (for short 'the Act') could not have been issued, relying on a decision in the case of Vijaya Commercial Credit Ltd. v. VI Income Tax Officer (I.L.R. 1987 (3) Karnataka 2317). In that case, a limited company was accused of the commission of an offence under Section 278B of the Income-Tax Act. It was held, relying on a decision in the case of Kusum v. Sinha (1980 126 ITR 804) that when the Parliament has prescribed a punishment of compulsory imprisonment for an offence, a company or a juristic person cannot possibly by sent to prison. 3.Section 9(1)(i) of the Act reads thus : "9.Offences and Penalties - (1) whoever commits any of the following offences, namely : (a) contravenes any of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the Court such imprisonment shall not be for a term of less than six months;" 4.Shri S.S. Naganand, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has placed before me an unreported judgment of this Court dated 11-11-1991 passed in Criminal Petition No. 1295/1989, wherein it is held that the Magistrate was not justified in proceeding against an accused when the offence alleged against a company is punishable with compulsory imprisonment. I am, therefore, of the view that the Magistrate could not have issued process as against A-1, the first petitioner herein. 5.It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there are no specif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d thereunder. But, nowhere the part played by petitioners 2 and 3 which has resulted in the commission of the offence or offences has been stated. In other words, the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against petitioners 2 and 3. If petitioners 2 and 3 were not in charge of the affairs of the company or if they were not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the commission of the offence, they would not be guilty of an offence or offences stated in the complaint. 8.In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (AIR 1983 S.C. 67), it has been held that when the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute any offence, the ....