Ved Kumari and ors. vs State of Punjab

J.M. Tandon, J.

The petitioners are Directors of Messrs Bhatinda Chemicals and Vanaspati Mill Private Ltd., Bhatinda. The premises of the Company were inspected by the Food and Supplies Inspector at about noon time on June 18, 1983. The Inspector detected the following two irregularities.

The party had not fixed any board regarding position of stock of edible oil which in violation of clause 15 of Punjab Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1977, (hereafter the Control JUDGMENT) and condition 7 of the licence.

As per Stock Register, the Party was having a balance of 237 quintals 45 Kgs. Mustard (Sarson) whereas it was found to be 240 quintals 90 Kgs. i e. 3 quintals 45 Kgs. in excess. The party thereby violated Clause 14 of the Control

The matters were reported to the police and F.I.R. No. 262 dated June 18, 1983, under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered. After the completion of investigation, the petitioners were challaned. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, vide order dated May 25, 1984, directed the petitioners to be charged. The following charge has been framed against the petitioners :

"I.O.P. Dharwal, Special Judge, Bhatinda, hereby charge you Dwarka Dass, Rajinder Mittal, Vinod Kumar and Ved Kumari accused as under:

That you on or about 18 6.1983 being the Directors of Messrs Bhatinda Chemicals and Banaspati Mills Private Limited, Bhatinda, did not display stock position of the commodity i.e. Sarson on the notice board of the factory premises when excess quantity of this commodity to the extent of 3 quintals 45 Kgs was detected on checking and physical verification by the Inspector Food and Supplies, Bhatinda, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Punjab Edible OilSeeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1977, which is punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge, by this Court."

The petitioners have assailed the F.I.R. and the charge framed against them in the present petition.

Messrs Bhatinda Chemicals and Banaspati Mills Private Ltd. Bhatinda, is a licensee under the Control JUDGMENTClause 14 of the Control JUDGMENT reads :

Maintenance of stock register and submission of returns

(1) Every licensee shall maintain a true account of stocks in Form ''C'' of the daily receipt and disposal, as the case may be, of edible oil seeds and edible oil and keep it at the place of his business for inspection as and when required.

(2)

(3)

The relevant part of condition No. 3 of the licence, issued to the Company reads;

3 (1)

(2) The licensee shall complete his accounts for each day on the close of the day to which they relate, unless prevented by reasonable cause, the burden of proving shall be upon him.

(3)

It is incumbent for the Company to maintain stock register under Clause 14 of the Control JUDGMENT and to make necessary entries therein each day on the close of the day under condition 3 of the licence. The Food and Supplies Inspector detected that in the Stock Register, the balance of mustard was shown as 237 quintals 45 Kgs. The premises of the Company were inspected at about noon on June 18, 1983. It is natural that the stock of Sarson in the premises of the Company would either increase or decrease on June 18, 1983. The Company or its Directors did follow, clause 14 of the Control JUDGMENTIf at noon time on June 18, 1983, the stock of Sarson was found in excess to the extent of 3 quintals 45 Kgs. than the stock (237 quintals 45 Kgs.) as shown in the stock register on the close of June 17, 1983, the Company or its Directors cannot be held guilty of contravention of Clause 14 of the Control JUDGMENT even if the report of the Food and Supplies Inspector on this point is taken as correct.

Clause 15 of the Control JUDGMENT reads : Every licensee shall exhibit at the entrance or some other prominent place of his business premises, the price list of all varieties of edible oilseeds and edible oils held by him for sale along with the opening balance of stock of each variety. This shall be legibly written in English or in Punjabi in Gurmukhi script.

The Food and Supplies Inspector found during inspection on June 18, 1983, that no board had been fixed showing the position of stock. The omission on the part of the Company to exhibit the stock position in terms of clause 15 of the Control JUDGMENT is punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Rajinder Mittal, Managing Director of the Company had stated at the time of inspection that the stock position was not exhibited at the entrance of the Company and it should not be inferred there from that the stock position was not exhibited at any other prominent place of the business premises. The contention is without merit. The evidence for and against the party cannot be examined in proceedings under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. It is obvious that the complaint of the Food and Supplies Inspector does reflect the violation of the provision contained in Clause 15 of the Control

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that assuming that contravention of some provision of the Control JUDGMENT punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has occurred, then the Director or Directors of the Company who were directly managing its affairs could be charged and not the Directors who were not concerned with its management. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners must prevail.

"6. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act reads :

Offence 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, 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 subsection 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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (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 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.

"

The case of the petitioners is that Rajinder Mittal petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Company was in charge thereof. In the FIR or in the report submitted to the Court for prosecution of the petitioners, it has neither been stated nor any foundation laid that the other petitioners (Directors) were also in charge of the Company. It is thus clear that Rajinder Mittal petitioner alone could be charged for violation of clause 15 of the Control JUDGMENT and not the other petitioners.

No arguments have been addressed for quashing the F.I.R. Even otherwise, there is hardly any justification to quash it.

In view of discussion above, the petition is allowed to the extent that the charge framed by the Special Judge, Bhatinda, against all the petitioners is quashed. The Special Judge would recast the charge against Rajinder Mittal petitioner alone in the light of the observations made above.