Karnataka High Court
Rajesh B Shah vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 January, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7466 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. RAJESH B SHAH,
S/O. BHIKHUBHAI SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 302,
SKY ELEVEN, NEAR ZEBAR SCHOOL,
THALTJ-SHILAJ ROAD,
THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD,
GUJARAT-380059
(EARLIER AT 5A, NATIONAL PARK SOCIETY,
GULBAJTEKRA ELLIS BRIDGE,
AHMEDABAD - 360015)
2. LALIT KUMAR BOHANIYA
S/O. RANGLAL AGRAWAL,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
PRESENTLY AT RESIDING AT 3B,
RAM MOHAN MULLICK, GARDEN LANE,
FLAT 7WF, KOLKATA,
WEST BENGAL-700010.
(EARLIER RESIDING AT NO.79,
BANGUR AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR,
BLOCK-A, KOLKATA - 70055.
3. SAJJAN KUMAR PASARI,
S/O. BANWARI LAL PASARI,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 4A, RAINEY PARK,
2
KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700019.
4. VIKRAM SOMANY
S/O. LATE OMKARLALSOMANY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 12/1,
JUDGES COURT ROAD,
KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700027.
5. GOVINDBHAI P PATEL,
S/O. PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 16B,
SURYAODAYA COLONY,
NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD,
GUJARAT-380013.
6. DEEPSHIKHA KHAITAN
D/O. VIKRAMSOMANY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 39,
FRIENDS COLONY EAST,
NEW DELHI-110065.
7. JUGAL KISHORE TAPARIA
S/O. NOP CHAND TAPARIA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT B/101,
SHIVAMKLASSE,
NEAR TRILOK BUNGALOWS,
BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD,
GUJARAT-380054. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.JYANA KOTHARI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
3
THROUGH
THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF
LEGAL METROLOGY,
INSPECTION SQUAD-1, NO.1,
ALI ASKER ROAD,
BANGALORE-560052. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA R D, HCGP)
-----
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
A. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2019
(SIGNED ON 18.07.2019) (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN
C.C.NO.36827/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF M.M.T.C.-I,
MAYOHALL, BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN ARE CONCERNED. B. QUASH THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
BEARING C.C.NO.36827/2017 (PRODUCED HEREIN AS
ANNEXURE-B) PENDING ON THE FILE OF M.M.T.C.-I, MAYO
HALL, BENGALURU AND ALL PROCEEDINGS EMANATING
HEREFROM, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE
CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Rule 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short `Act') read with Section 36(1) of the Act. The jurisdictional Magistrate after perusal of the complaint took 4 cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the Act and further issued summons to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, this petition is filed.
2. Smt.Jyana Kothari, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Rohan Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 49(1) of the Act specifies that the person who has been nominated under sub-section (2) to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. She further submits that the petitioners are not nominated directors of the company and as such the registration of complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 36 of the Act is one without authority of law.
3. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioners having violated Rule 18(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Section 18 of the Act, the jurisdictional 5 Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the said offence and further issued summons to the petitioners.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. A perusal of Annexure-F indicates that the application is submitted under Section 49(2) of the Act before the appropriate Authority nominating Shri Atul Sanghvi as director of the petitioners-company and the same is not disputed. Section 49(1) of the Act specifies that the person who has been nominated to be in charge and responsible for the affairs of the company shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In the present case, as on the date of alleged offence, the petitioners had nominated a director and the same was informed to the appropriate Authority under Section 49 of the Act which is evident from Annexure-F. Hence, taking cognizance of the offence by the jurisdictional Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 36 of the Act against the petitioners 6 who are not nominated directors is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed;
ii) The proceeding in CC No.36827/2019 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-1, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed;
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM