Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash And Others vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 22 November, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRR No. 2619 of 2013 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRR No. 2619 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.11. 2013
Om Parkash and others
......Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Mayank Mathur, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for
CBI.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging orders dated 6.4.2013 and 15.4.2013 framing charges under Sections 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act for short).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although, petitioners were partners of the mill in question but they had executed a special power of attorney in favour of their partner Ashok Batra to run day to day affairs of the firm. Petitioners had also authorized Ashok Batra to execute the agreements with different Devi Anita 2013.11.29 15:29 I am approving this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2619 of 2013 (O&M) 2 agencies on behalf of the firm. The said special power of attorney Annexure P-2 was executed on 27.8.2004. Hence, petitioners could not be prosecuted criminally for any action committed by the firm as petitioners were not running day to day affairs of the firm on the date of registration of FIR in question.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that since the petitioners were having a share in the firm, they could not escape their criminal liability.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that during Kharif season 2004-2005, sub standard rice consignments had been accepted by the officials of Food Corporation of India (FCI) from various rice millers while payments were made as prescribed for 'A' grade rice. In order to check the veracity of information, surprise checks were conducted at FCI Centres. During the checking, samples were drawn from various FCI Centres. As per the reports of the analyst, the samples were not found upto the mark. Thereafter, the matter was duly inquired by the Central Bureau of Investigation and FIR in question was registered against 29 officials of the Food Corporation of India and 110 rice millers.
In the present case, although, petitioners are partners of the firm but they had executed a special power of attorney in favour of their partner Ashok Batra to run day to day affairs of the firm. Petitioners had also authorised Ashok Batra to execute agreements of different agencies on behalf of the firm. Execution of the power of Devi Anita attorney by the petitioners in favour of partner Ashok Batra has not 2013.11.29 15:29 I am approving this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2619 of 2013 (O&M) 3 been controverted by the counsel for the respondent. Since the petitioners were not looking after the day to day affairs of the firm, they cannot be held liable for criminal prosecution qua any offence committed by their partner, who was looking after day to day affairs of the firm.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 6.4.2013 and 15.4.2013, qua the petitioners, are set aside. Consequently, petitioners stand discharged in FIR No.RCHG2006A0002 dated 7.1.2006 under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act, registered at police Station CBI/ACB, Chandigarh.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 22, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.11.29 15:29 I am approving this document Chandigarh