Som Nath vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Som Nath and Ramesh Kumar, by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashing of FIR No. 14 dated Jan 23, 1991 registered at Police Station Divn. No. 3, Ludhiana for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and also charge sheet dated Feb, 1992 and consequent proceedings.

The impugned FIR was registered on the allegations that on a raid being carried out by the Food and Supplies authorities and the police on the premises of M/s Sohan Lal Kasturi Lal (Sethi Dee Hatti), Karyana Merchant, Sabban Bazar, Ludhiana, a huge quantity of Vanaspati Ghee, refined edible oil and Dal were found, regarding which Som Nath made a statement. On inquiry it was found that the firm also had another godown in Daulat Market, Ludhiana, where it keeps stock of Dalda Ghee. The godown was then got opened and a further stock of Vanaspati Ghee and Dal was found. The firm had kept these articles for sale and it also issued cash memo in respect of Vanaspati Ghee and refined, oil, although, the firm had no licence with it to deal in these articles of Food.

The petitioners have challenged their prosecution on the basis that in the fIR as well as in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. no allegations had been made that any of the petitioners was incharge of the business of the firm or were responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business. Section 10 of Essential Commodities Act which deals with the offences by the companies and firms, so far as relevant reads as follows :

"Offences by companies : (1) If the person contravening an order made under Section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge 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."

The explanation of this section reads as follows :

"Explanation : for the purposes of this Section :

a) "Company" means any 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."

I find force in the contention of the learned counsel that in order to make the petitioners liable, the prosecution has to allege that at the time when the offence was committed by the company the persons sought to be prosecuted were incharge or responsible to the company for conduct of its business. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the partnership deed showing that the firm M/s Sohan Lal Kasturi Lal was partnership firm. There being no allegations in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., that any of the petitioners was incharge of responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, the prosecution cannot end into conviction and the same shall be abase of process of Court.

I hereby accept the petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioners launched in the Court of Special Judge on the basis of the impugned FIR No. 14 dated Jan. 23, 1991. The goods confiscated shall be returned to the owners of the firm on production of a valid licence.