Karnataka High Court
Mr Harish Manghan Manwani vs The Inspector Of Legal Metrology on 20 November, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2369
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.18630-18738/2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. HARISH MANGHAN MANWANI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
# 6, VIRGO VILLE
SHIRLEY RAJAN ROAD
BANDRA WEST
MUMBAI - 400050.
2. MR. SANJIV SOSHIL MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO 13A
7TH FLOOR, WING 1 URMI AANGAN
13A PEDDAR ROAD
MUMBAI - 400026.
3. MR. DEVOPAM BAJPAI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO 805/806
MEGHDOOT TOWER A
LOKHANDWALA, BACK ROAD
ANDHERI (W)
MUMBAI - 400053.
4. MR. PATHAMADAI BALACHANDARAN BALAJI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1ST FLOOR
VASUKAMALA BUILDING
NEAR AGARWAL NURSING
14TH ROAD, BANDRA WEST
MUMBAI - 400050.
2
5. MR. RAMADORAI SUBRAMANIAN
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO 1,
FIRST FLOOR, WYOMING
LITTLE GIBBS ROAD
MALABAR HILL
MUMBAI - 400006.
6. MR. ADITYA NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT # B-20/2
DLF CITY PHASE - I
GURGAON - 122002.
7. MR. OM PRAKASH BHATT
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 3
GROUND FLOOR,,SEAGULL
ML DAHANUKAR MARG
MUMBAI - 400026.
8. DR. SANJIV MISRA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1541
ATS VILLAGE, SECTOR 93-A
NOIDA EXPRESSWAY
NOIDA - 201304.
9. MS. KALPANA JAISINGH MORPARIA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
A- 52 AHUJA TOWRS
APPA SAHEB MARATHE
BEHIND ICICI PRUDENTIAL
PRABHADEVI
MUMBAI - 400025.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADV.
ALONG WITH
SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV.)
3
AND:
1. THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY
AUTO TAXI UNIT
NO 1, ALI ASKER ROAD
PB NO. 175
BENGALURU - 560052.
2. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY
BENGALURU
NO. 1
ALI ASKER ROAD,
PB NO. 175
BENGALURU - 560052. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
IN CC NO.26351/2015 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PENDING
BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I,
BENGALURU (ANNX-D) AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
14.07.2015 PASSED IN CC.NO.26351/2015 BY THE
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I, BENGALURU,
TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES (ANNX-E), ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions are filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C. No.26351/2015, before the Metropolitan Magistrate 4 Traffic Court - I, Bengaluru vide Annexure-D, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 & 4 to 11 therein, and to set aside the Order dated 14.07.2015 passed in C.C. No.26351/2015 taking cognizance against the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 28, 29 and 31 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 vide Annexure-E.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader has accepted notice for the respondents.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
4. The complaint allegations are that the respondent No.1 Inspector of Legal Metrology had inspected the premises of the accused No.1 - Company, examined certain wholesale packages. During inspection it was noticed that the petitioners and others have violated the penal provisions under Sections 28 and 29 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short, 'the Act') and thereby they have committed the alleged offences. On submission of the 5 report, the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru has taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons against the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously contend that as per Annexure-A one Mr. Pradeep Bannerjee, Executive Director-Supply Chain, was nominated as Nominee under the Act as detailed in the Board Resolution of the Company dated 22.01.2012 and same was communicated to the Legal Metrology Department as well. In view of the nomination done by the Regional Legal Manager, Mr. Pradeep Bannerjee, Executive Director of the company was the authorised person to represent the company. But the complaint has been filed against the petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2, 4 to 11 therein, which is not proper and justified.
6. As could be seen from the record at annexure- A, accused No.3 Mr. Pradeep Bannerjee has been nominated under Section 49 of the Act. There are no specific allegations with regard to the commission of the 6 offences by the petitioners herein. There is no mention whatsoever regarding involvement of these petitioners in the Management of accused No.1 - Company. As per the records, it is evident that accused No.3 alone was nominated to look after the affairs of the company under Section 49 of the Act.
7. Section 49 of the Act intends that when an offence under the said Act has been committed by a company, person who has been nominated under sub- section (2) thereof, to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. He shall be deemed to be responsible for the wrongful act if any, committed by the company and as such he is liable to be proceeded with and punished accordingly. It is pertinent to note that S.49(4) of the Act speaks of making any Director, Manager, Secretary or other Officers other than the nominated Director, Manager, or Secretary to be held guilty if their role is forthcoming in commission of wrongful acts. But in the instant case, no such material is placed on 7 record to show the complicity of these petitioners in commission of the offences punishable under the Act. If the complainant has any grievance against any of the petitioners or any Secretary or Manager or any Officer of the Company, specific allegations could have been made against them. In the light of above provisions and the submissions made in the complaint as could be seen, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there are no allegations about any role played by these petitioners.
8. In the absence of any specific allegations adverting to the specific role played by the petitioners herein, it cannot be said that these petitioners are liable for the offences committed by the company. As already stated above, Mr. Pradeep Bannerjee, who is nominated as Executive Director to look after the Management and affairs of the Company is the only person authorised to represent the company in the event of any proceedings 8 being initiated against the company under the provisions of the Act.
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP, it is evident that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein who are arraigned as accused Nos.2, 4 to 11 is against the provisions of the Act and the proceedings initiated against them is not at all justified.
10. In the above circumstances, the petitions deserve to be allowed. All the proceedings against the petitioners herein namely, accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 11 deserve to be quashed. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER The petitions are allowed.
Consequently, the Order dated 14.07.2015 passed in C.C. No.26351/2015, taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners, punishable under Sections 28, 29 and 31 of the Legal Metrology Act, by the Metropolitan 9 Magistrate Traffic Court - I, Bengaluru, and all further proceedings in connection with the said case relating to these petitioners are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*