Futwah-Islampur Light Railway Line (Nationalisation) Act,1985
Act No : 83
Section : OFFENCES BY COMPANIES
SECTION 14: 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, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any 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 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 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. NOTES Partner of a firm, not in overall control of the day-today business of the firm held, not liable under S. 34 for offences under the Act.-A person "in charge of" and "responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company", contemplated in S. 34(1) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act must be a person in overall control of the day to day business of the company or firm. If a partner of a firm is not in such overall control he cannot be liable to be convicted merely because he had the right to participate in the business of the firm under the terms of the partnership deed. State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, (1981) 2 SCC 335: 1981 SCC (Cri) 453 : AIR 1981 SC 872 : (1981) 3 SCR 200 : 1981 Cri LJ 595 : 1982 MLJ (Cri) 164. G. L. Gupta v. D. H. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCC 189 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 279, followed. Extent of liability of the accused has to be established by evidence during trial.-
Magistrate finding that allegations made in the complaint made out a prima facie offence and that all the accused partners, being responsible for carrying on business of the partnership firm, prima facie committed the offence and therefore, taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process against all the accused-Held, High Court erred in holding that some of the accused were not responsible for the management and conduct of the firm and on that basis in quashing ihe proceeding against the accused. Drugs Inspector v. B. K. Krishnaiah, (1981) 2 SCC 454 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 487 : AIR 1981 SC 1164.
Read All Comments
