Subhankar Biswas vs Sandip Meta

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.

1086- 1089 OF 2008

O R D E R

This order will dispose of all the appeals referred

to above.

The facts have been taken from criminal appeal No.

1129/2006. The matter arises out of a complaint under

Section 19 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act,

1976. In the complaint it has been urged that Rules 2,4,6,

8, 9 and 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures

(Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 had been violated. In

the meantime the appellant also filed an application for

the compounding of the offence and the appropriate

authority directed that the offence be compounded. This

however could not go through for the reason that as per the

allegation several similar offences had been committed by

the Company within three years. An application under

Section 482 was thereafter filed by the Chairman of the

Company Mr. H.B.Lal and the appellant Subhankar Biswas the

then Deputy General Manager raising several pleas, one of

-2-

being based on Section 74 of the Act and the averments made

in the complaint which did not identify as to who was the

person responsible and incharge of the affairs of the

Company. It was pointed out that in the complaint the bare

language of Section 74 had been reproduced without naming any

body as being responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the

Company. The averment made in the complaint which is

relevant to the matter is reproduced below:

"That the persons committed this offence

are companies. So every person at the time of

offence was in charge of and was responsible to the

companies for the business of the companies as well

as the companies shall be liable to be proceeded

against the punished accordingly as per section 74

of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act,

1976."

It was accordingly argued in the High Court that the

complaint itself was not maintainable as it did not

indicate as to who was responsible for the day-to-day

affairs of the Company. After hearing both sides the High

Court by its order of 24th March 2005 quashed the

proceedings qua the Chairman Mr. H.B.Lal with the

following observations:

-3-

"Therefore in the absence of any specific

averment regarding the role played by petitioner

No.1 M.B.Lal, who is the Chairman of the

Corporation and there is nothing to indicate that

he was in charge of and responsible to the

Corporation relating to its day-to-day affairs of

the Corporation at the time of commission of the

alleged offence, the present application deserves

to be allowed in part and the proceeding against

the said petitioner No.1 M.B.Lal is to be

quashed."

Today, before us, Mr. Pradeep Ghosh, the learned

senior counsel for the appellant, has argued that the

allegations against the Chairman of the Company and the

appellant before us were identical and there was no

distinction whatsoever between the two and the High Court

having quashed the proceedings against the Chairman, a

similar order ought to have followed for the appellant as

well.

Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for

the respondent-State, has however pointed out that the

question as to the identity of the person(s) in charge of

the day-to-day affairs of the Company was a matter of

evidence and it was therefore imperative that the trial go

on.

-4-

We have considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties. We find absolutely no

distinction between the case of the Chairman and the

appellant and the High Court has not brought out any

distinction between the two. It has to be borne in mind

that in prosecutions in such like cases no roving enquiry

is permissible and an obligation rests on the prosecution

to give details so that the persons responsible so that the

trial can proceed against them. We are therefore of the

opinion that the appeal qua the present appellant ought to

succeed.

We accordingly allow these appeals; set aside the

order of the High Court insofar it goes against the

appellant and direct that the proceedings against the

appellant shall also stand quashed in all cases.

.................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

....................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi, April 7, 2011.