Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Legal position which emerges from the aforesaid is that in order to rope in a Director of a company as accused of an offence under section 138 NI Act vicariously with the aid of section 141 NI Act, the complainant is not only required to make a specific allegation that the person concerned was the Director of the company but he is also required to make specific allegation of fact indicating as to how and in what manner the said Director was in­charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Since the language of Section 9AA(1) of Central Excise Act is exactly similar to Section 141 NI Act, the same principle of law would apply to the CR No.151/12, 150/12 & 149/12 Director of the company in order to hold him vicariously responsible for an offence committed by the company under section 9 of the Central Excise Act.

12. Having discussed the law, now it is to be seen whether the allegations in the complaint make out a case under section 9AA of the Central Excise Act to hold the petitioner vicariously liable for the offences punishable under section 9(1)

(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Act allegedly committed by the accused company M/s Office Machines Pvt. Ltd. On reading of the copy of the complaint annexed to the petition, which is not disputed, it transpires that the complainant is seeking to rope in the petitioner, who has been arrayed as respondent No.3 in the complaint, on the basis of allegations made in para 8 of the complaint, which is reproduced thus:­ "That the accused No.2 & 3, being the Directors of the accused firm No.1 and also being responsible in the day to day activity of the firm shall also be liable to be punished under section 9 of the Act in the same manner as the accused No.1".