Full Judgment Text
1 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1281 OF 2020
Sunny S/o. Gurparshad Sharma. … APPLICANT
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Rajgopal S/o Mulchand Bajaj. … RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Nikhil P. Dube, Advocate
for Applicant.
Mr. R. D. Sanap, APP for Respondent/State.
…
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1147 OF 2020
1. Shyamsundar S/o Bhorilal Toshniwal,
2. Mahendra S/o Omprakash Singhi. … APPLICANTS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Rajgopal S/o Mulchand Bajaj. … RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Balraj Pande, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. R. D. Sanap, APP for Respondent/State.
...
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
2 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
th
DATE : 26 November, 2020.
O R D E R: (Per T. V. Nalawade, J.)
. Both the proceedings are filed for relief of quashing and
setting aside FIR on the basis of which C.R. No.194 of 2020 is
registered in M.I.D.C. Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 468, 34 etc. of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 18 (c) and Section 17 (c) of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2 Both the sides are heard.
3 The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one
inspector appointed under the provisions of the Act. The submissions
made and the record show that action was taken by this department
th
on the basis of secrete information received by it on 15 March, 2020.
There was information against M/s. Eurolife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.,
MIDC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. The officers of the department
visited the premises of this unit of the private company on the same
day and inspection was done of the goods available there and also of
the record. The inspection was made in the presence of
representatives of this concern like Pradeep Changole, Sanjay
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
3 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
Kaushal, Rahul Patil, Sanjay Joshi, Raju Sawale and Anil Karpe.
4 The inspection revealed that many containers of sanitizer
were present in the aforesaid premises and original date of
manufacture and original date of expiry of the contents were changed
by affixing new labels on the containers. The price was also changed.
The inspection revealed that M/s. Dishman Carbogen Amcis Limited,
was the manufacturer of this sanitizer. It was informed to the officers
of this department that concern of the accused was distributor of the
manufacturer. The inspection revealed that already big stock of
sanitizer was distributed by way of sale by changing the dates of
manufacture and the date of expiry by extending the date of expiry.
Huge stock of sanitizer was ready for distribution by sale.
5 The inspection done by the officers of drug department
further revealed that at the time of sale of sanitizer in the past, two
different bills were prepared for the same batch number and two sets
of record were created. On one set, the dates given by manufacturer
of manufacture and expiry were mentioned, but on the other set, new
dates of manufacture and expiry were mentioned and then the sale
was made. The officers realized that to deceive others, such modus
operandi was used by this concern. It was noticed that already huge
stock was sold to Rohit Distributors, Pune and Laxmi Pharma of
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
4 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
Mumbai.
6 The stock of sanitizer on which dates were changed and
which was worth rupees 48.29 lakh was found in this premises and it
came to be seized under Panchanama. As per the procedure given
under the Act, some samples were separated from the stock and the
description was mentioned in Form 16 given in the Act.
7 The papers show that on inquiry, the aforesaid
representatives of the accused concern informed that the plant head of
this unit from Aurangabad like Shubham and marketing head like
Shibu had given instructions to paste labels by changing dates. In
view of this circumstance, the officers took steps and called aforesaid
Rohit, purchaser to return the stock purchased from the present
concern. The stock was returned and it was found that manipulation
was done on this stock also by the accused persons.
th
8 On 17 March, 2020, the representatives of the accused
concern gave statements that they had received instructions for
making such changes from the head office, Directors. Such
statements of Rahul Patil and Virendar Dhar came to be recorded and
their written submissions were also obtained.
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
5 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
9 Correspondence was made with M/s. Dishman by the
officers of the department to make inquiry as M/s. Dishman was shown
as manufacturer. M/s. Dishman confirmed that stock was sold to the
accused concern as accused was distributor. However, the
manufacturer informed that no permission or instruction was given to
the accused to change the date of manufacture and expiry date and
also the price. The manufacturer informed the department in the letter
th
dated 26 September, 2020 as follows:
“Further it is submitted that CEO of M/S Eurolife briefed us
about the variation carried out at their end so far as
Maximum Retail Price of the products, that we revealed in
the above e-mail communication. The said variation is
done without our prior consent however, till we received
your notice dated 06/08/2020, we were not aware about
alteration in the expiry date as well. Nevertheless it was
clearly refused by us relying upon the CoA of the product.
Even otherwise issue of “expiry date” is treated to be
critical and as per policy of our company, it is never
permissible to modify the same in any case.”
10 Admittedly, concern of the accused had not obtained
licence to manufacture drugs including sanitizer. The copies of the
licences in Form 20B and 21 B issued by the department are
produced. These forms show that licence was given to sell, stock or
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
6 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
distribute by wholesale drugs other than those specified in Schedules
C, C(1) and X. The licences show that they were issued in respect of
the premises where the aforesaid inspection as carried out. The
licenses show that they are issued in favour of Directors of M/s.
Eurolife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (accused concern) and the names of the
Directors to whom it is issued are also mentioned in the licences. In
addition to the names of the Applicants of the present two applications,
there are three more names of the Directors on the licences. Thus,
every person, who was holding the licence can be held responsible for
aforesaid illegal activity.
11 This Court has perused the record prepared by the
department during inspection, which include Panchanama. The details
of the changes made by affixing labels on the containers are given by
the department. The details show that the period given for use was
extended on most of the stock by one year and to some extent the
price was changed.
12 Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned senior counsel
submitted for Applicant Sharma that Sharma is only investor in the
company and he is not involved in the management of the company.
He also made submission that it cannot be said that Sharma would
have been benefited due to aforesaid act. Mr. Pande, learned counsel
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
7 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
submitted for Applicant Toshniwal that the Applicant is aged about 80
years and it cannot be believed that he was involved in the
management of this private company.
13 The submissions made for the two Applicants by their
respective counsels are not supported by any record. There is nothing
on record to show that the management was entrusted to a particular
person by the Directors. On the contrary, the aforesaid two licences
show that they were issued to the persons like present Applicants.
The submissions made show that Applicant Toshniwal is the founder of
this private company and Applicant Sharma has purchased 43% of the
shares in this company and in that capacity he was the Director. The
relevant contentions made by these two Applicants can be found in
anticipatory bail application, which was filed by them in the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. It
appears that due to pandemic situation, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge did not take the matter seriously and granted the relief
of anticipatory bail. The application, which was filed for anticipatory
bail is produced by the Applicants and the application shows that it
was not contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that
these two Applicants were not involved in the management of the
private company. On the contrary, the application shows that all the
Directors had gone together before the learned Additional Sessions
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
8 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
Judge for getting the relief of anticipatory bail. This circumstance also
needs to be kept in mind.
14 The aforesaid record and circumstances show that to
make profit the private company of the present Applicants used the
peculiar modus operandi. They changed the dates like the date of
manufacture and the date of expiry, which are important as the
substance is a drug. The importance of this drug is more in the
present situation created by Covid-19 virus. In view of the say of the
manufacturer, which is quoted above, it can be said that the
manufacturer would not have changed these dates. If such substance
is used after expiry date, it may create health problems and it may
prove to be ineffective. Thus, even when society was facing alarm of
Covid-19 virus, the accused persons did such acts only to make
money. As due to expiry dates, which were extended by affixing new
labels, the persons must have used the sanitizer even after expiry date
and in future also they are likely to use the drug, which is sold, but
which is not accounted by the accused, it can be said that the accused
persons committed the offence of creation of false record and also the
offence of cheating. They have also committed the offences
punishable under the Act. Thus, there is material against both the
Applicants to make out prima-facie case for the offences for which
crime is registered.
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
9 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
15 Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned senior counsel placed
reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court and this Court in
some reported cases. The learned senior counsel submitted that the
prosecution needs to show that the Applicants were involved in the
management of the private company. When there are statements of
the employees of aforesaid nature showing that they had received
instructions from the Directors, Applicants and when there is nothing
on the record to show that a particular Director was entrusted with the
management of the company, when licence was in their names and
when each one was to get share in the profit proportionate to the
investment, it cannot be said that the present Applicants were not
involved in the management. The cases referred are as under:
a) 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1090, (Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi);
b) (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609, (Sunil Bharti
Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation);
c) Criminal Writ Petition No.827 of 2016 and another
matter, (Samar Ray & Anr. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr.) decided at Principal Seat of this
th
Court on 13 July, 2016;
d) Writ Petition No.834 of 2014 and other matters, (Alok
Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
10 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
th
decided at Principal Seat of this Court on 10
February, 2015; and
e) Criminal Writ Petition No.2320 of 2014, (Hetal Naren
Thakore Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr) decided
th
at Principal Seat of this Court on 9 December, 2014.
16 There is no dispute over the proposition made in the
aforesaid reported cases by the Apex Court and by this Court. In the
present matter, Section 34 of the Act can be used if the offence
committed by company and it runs as under:
“34. Offences by companies.—(1) Where an offence
under this Act has been committed by a company, every
person who at the time the offence 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 offence 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
provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all
due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(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 the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
11 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to
be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section—
(a) “company” means a body corporate, and
includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) “director” in relation to a firm means a partner
in the firm.”
17 The material already quoted by this Court is sufficient to
infer, at this stage, atleast for prima-facie purpose that both the
Applicants were responsible for conducting of the business of this
company. It is also possible to infer, at this stage, for prima-facie
purpose that the offence was committed with consent or connivance of
these two Applicants. It is already observed that the Applicants are the
persons, who are benefited by the offence. This Court holds that the
relief claimed cannot be given to the Applicants. In the result, both the
applications stand dismissed.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ndm
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1281 OF 2020
Sunny S/o. Gurparshad Sharma. … APPLICANT
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Rajgopal S/o Mulchand Bajaj. … RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Nikhil P. Dube, Advocate
for Applicant.
Mr. R. D. Sanap, APP for Respondent/State.
…
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1147 OF 2020
1. Shyamsundar S/o Bhorilal Toshniwal,
2. Mahendra S/o Omprakash Singhi. … APPLICANTS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Rajgopal S/o Mulchand Bajaj. … RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Balraj Pande, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. R. D. Sanap, APP for Respondent/State.
...
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
2 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
th
DATE : 26 November, 2020.
O R D E R: (Per T. V. Nalawade, J.)
. Both the proceedings are filed for relief of quashing and
setting aside FIR on the basis of which C.R. No.194 of 2020 is
registered in M.I.D.C. Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 468, 34 etc. of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 18 (c) and Section 17 (c) of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2 Both the sides are heard.
3 The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one
inspector appointed under the provisions of the Act. The submissions
made and the record show that action was taken by this department
th
on the basis of secrete information received by it on 15 March, 2020.
There was information against M/s. Eurolife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.,
MIDC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. The officers of the department
visited the premises of this unit of the private company on the same
day and inspection was done of the goods available there and also of
the record. The inspection was made in the presence of
representatives of this concern like Pradeep Changole, Sanjay
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
3 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
Kaushal, Rahul Patil, Sanjay Joshi, Raju Sawale and Anil Karpe.
4 The inspection revealed that many containers of sanitizer
were present in the aforesaid premises and original date of
manufacture and original date of expiry of the contents were changed
by affixing new labels on the containers. The price was also changed.
The inspection revealed that M/s. Dishman Carbogen Amcis Limited,
was the manufacturer of this sanitizer. It was informed to the officers
of this department that concern of the accused was distributor of the
manufacturer. The inspection revealed that already big stock of
sanitizer was distributed by way of sale by changing the dates of
manufacture and the date of expiry by extending the date of expiry.
Huge stock of sanitizer was ready for distribution by sale.
5 The inspection done by the officers of drug department
further revealed that at the time of sale of sanitizer in the past, two
different bills were prepared for the same batch number and two sets
of record were created. On one set, the dates given by manufacturer
of manufacture and expiry were mentioned, but on the other set, new
dates of manufacture and expiry were mentioned and then the sale
was made. The officers realized that to deceive others, such modus
operandi was used by this concern. It was noticed that already huge
stock was sold to Rohit Distributors, Pune and Laxmi Pharma of
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
4 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
Mumbai.
6 The stock of sanitizer on which dates were changed and
which was worth rupees 48.29 lakh was found in this premises and it
came to be seized under Panchanama. As per the procedure given
under the Act, some samples were separated from the stock and the
description was mentioned in Form 16 given in the Act.
7 The papers show that on inquiry, the aforesaid
representatives of the accused concern informed that the plant head of
this unit from Aurangabad like Shubham and marketing head like
Shibu had given instructions to paste labels by changing dates. In
view of this circumstance, the officers took steps and called aforesaid
Rohit, purchaser to return the stock purchased from the present
concern. The stock was returned and it was found that manipulation
was done on this stock also by the accused persons.
th
8 On 17 March, 2020, the representatives of the accused
concern gave statements that they had received instructions for
making such changes from the head office, Directors. Such
statements of Rahul Patil and Virendar Dhar came to be recorded and
their written submissions were also obtained.
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
5 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
9 Correspondence was made with M/s. Dishman by the
officers of the department to make inquiry as M/s. Dishman was shown
as manufacturer. M/s. Dishman confirmed that stock was sold to the
accused concern as accused was distributor. However, the
manufacturer informed that no permission or instruction was given to
the accused to change the date of manufacture and expiry date and
also the price. The manufacturer informed the department in the letter
th
dated 26 September, 2020 as follows:
“Further it is submitted that CEO of M/S Eurolife briefed us
about the variation carried out at their end so far as
Maximum Retail Price of the products, that we revealed in
the above e-mail communication. The said variation is
done without our prior consent however, till we received
your notice dated 06/08/2020, we were not aware about
alteration in the expiry date as well. Nevertheless it was
clearly refused by us relying upon the CoA of the product.
Even otherwise issue of “expiry date” is treated to be
critical and as per policy of our company, it is never
permissible to modify the same in any case.”
10 Admittedly, concern of the accused had not obtained
licence to manufacture drugs including sanitizer. The copies of the
licences in Form 20B and 21 B issued by the department are
produced. These forms show that licence was given to sell, stock or
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
6 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
distribute by wholesale drugs other than those specified in Schedules
C, C(1) and X. The licences show that they were issued in respect of
the premises where the aforesaid inspection as carried out. The
licenses show that they are issued in favour of Directors of M/s.
Eurolife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (accused concern) and the names of the
Directors to whom it is issued are also mentioned in the licences. In
addition to the names of the Applicants of the present two applications,
there are three more names of the Directors on the licences. Thus,
every person, who was holding the licence can be held responsible for
aforesaid illegal activity.
11 This Court has perused the record prepared by the
department during inspection, which include Panchanama. The details
of the changes made by affixing labels on the containers are given by
the department. The details show that the period given for use was
extended on most of the stock by one year and to some extent the
price was changed.
12 Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned senior counsel
submitted for Applicant Sharma that Sharma is only investor in the
company and he is not involved in the management of the company.
He also made submission that it cannot be said that Sharma would
have been benefited due to aforesaid act. Mr. Pande, learned counsel
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
7 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
submitted for Applicant Toshniwal that the Applicant is aged about 80
years and it cannot be believed that he was involved in the
management of this private company.
13 The submissions made for the two Applicants by their
respective counsels are not supported by any record. There is nothing
on record to show that the management was entrusted to a particular
person by the Directors. On the contrary, the aforesaid two licences
show that they were issued to the persons like present Applicants.
The submissions made show that Applicant Toshniwal is the founder of
this private company and Applicant Sharma has purchased 43% of the
shares in this company and in that capacity he was the Director. The
relevant contentions made by these two Applicants can be found in
anticipatory bail application, which was filed by them in the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. It
appears that due to pandemic situation, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge did not take the matter seriously and granted the relief
of anticipatory bail. The application, which was filed for anticipatory
bail is produced by the Applicants and the application shows that it
was not contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that
these two Applicants were not involved in the management of the
private company. On the contrary, the application shows that all the
Directors had gone together before the learned Additional Sessions
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
8 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
Judge for getting the relief of anticipatory bail. This circumstance also
needs to be kept in mind.
14 The aforesaid record and circumstances show that to
make profit the private company of the present Applicants used the
peculiar modus operandi. They changed the dates like the date of
manufacture and the date of expiry, which are important as the
substance is a drug. The importance of this drug is more in the
present situation created by Covid-19 virus. In view of the say of the
manufacturer, which is quoted above, it can be said that the
manufacturer would not have changed these dates. If such substance
is used after expiry date, it may create health problems and it may
prove to be ineffective. Thus, even when society was facing alarm of
Covid-19 virus, the accused persons did such acts only to make
money. As due to expiry dates, which were extended by affixing new
labels, the persons must have used the sanitizer even after expiry date
and in future also they are likely to use the drug, which is sold, but
which is not accounted by the accused, it can be said that the accused
persons committed the offence of creation of false record and also the
offence of cheating. They have also committed the offences
punishable under the Act. Thus, there is material against both the
Applicants to make out prima-facie case for the offences for which
crime is registered.
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
9 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
15 Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned senior counsel placed
reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court and this Court in
some reported cases. The learned senior counsel submitted that the
prosecution needs to show that the Applicants were involved in the
management of the private company. When there are statements of
the employees of aforesaid nature showing that they had received
instructions from the Directors, Applicants and when there is nothing
on the record to show that a particular Director was entrusted with the
management of the company, when licence was in their names and
when each one was to get share in the profit proportionate to the
investment, it cannot be said that the present Applicants were not
involved in the management. The cases referred are as under:
a) 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1090, (Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi);
b) (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609, (Sunil Bharti
Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation);
c) Criminal Writ Petition No.827 of 2016 and another
matter, (Samar Ray & Anr. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr.) decided at Principal Seat of this
th
Court on 13 July, 2016;
d) Writ Petition No.834 of 2014 and other matters, (Alok
Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
10 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
th
decided at Principal Seat of this Court on 10
February, 2015; and
e) Criminal Writ Petition No.2320 of 2014, (Hetal Naren
Thakore Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr) decided
th
at Principal Seat of this Court on 9 December, 2014.
16 There is no dispute over the proposition made in the
aforesaid reported cases by the Apex Court and by this Court. In the
present matter, Section 34 of the Act can be used if the offence
committed by company and it runs as under:
“34. Offences by companies.—(1) Where an offence
under this Act has been committed by a company, every
person who at the time the offence 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 offence 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
provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all
due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(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 the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::
11 APPLNs.1281 & 1147 of 2020.odt
attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to
be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section—
(a) “company” means a body corporate, and
includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) “director” in relation to a firm means a partner
in the firm.”
17 The material already quoted by this Court is sufficient to
infer, at this stage, atleast for prima-facie purpose that both the
Applicants were responsible for conducting of the business of this
company. It is also possible to infer, at this stage, for prima-facie
purpose that the offence was committed with consent or connivance of
these two Applicants. It is already observed that the Applicants are the
persons, who are benefited by the offence. This Court holds that the
relief claimed cannot be given to the Applicants. In the result, both the
applications stand dismissed.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ndm
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:34 :::