Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.25 seconds)
Mulki Suryanarayanrao Rau And Another vs Gurushant Gangadhar Kamble And Others on 5 January, 1987
cites
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
The Central Excise Act, 1944
The Companies Act, 1956
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982
14. Now, in the case of Ram Kishan Rohtagi, it was held that there were no clear allegations against the Directors that they were responsible for the conduct of business and, therefore, the proceedings came to be quashed of business and, therefore, Manager. It is true that in that case the Directors were sought to be punished for the act of food adulteration holding that they were responsible for the conduct of the business in their capacity as Directors as such. But it is important to note that in our case, as submitted by Mr. Samant, the present accused persons are not sought to be punished only because they are Directors but on account of their complicity in the commission of the alleged offences.
Lennart Schussler And Anr vs Director Of Enforcement & Anr on 14 October, 1969
L.J. 9 and Lennart Schussler and Another v. Director of Enforcement and Another, 1970 Cri. L.J. 707 are concerned, I do not think they can be of much help to Mr. Desai for the simple reason that the direct as well as circumstantial evidence pointing out to the positive facts of agreement of conspiracy may be well adduced at the time of the trial. All that has to be seen now is, whether the material mentioned in the complaint discloses or not that there are circumstances suggesting pre-arranged meeting of minds among the accused persons to do certain illegal acts or legal acts by illegal means. I am of the view that so long as the complaint in our case is concerned, there is enough material on the record to suggest criminal conspiracy on the part of the accused persons.
Section 9 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sharadchandra Shripad Marathe vs Gurushant Gangadhar Kamble And Others on 24 July, 1986
34. A perusal of all these cases shows that they were decided in the facts and circumstances obtaining in each of the case. In , there was no material on the record on the basis of which any tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the accused were in any manner connected with the incident leading to the prosecution. In 1978 (2) ELT (J 538), the complaint taken at its face value did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioners or opposite party No. 3. In 1984 (18) ELT 181 (P & H) = 1984 ECR 2343 (P & H), in the absence of any specific allegations against the Directors of the company, they could not be held liable. In , so far as the Directors were concerned, there was not even a whisper nor a shred of evidence nor anything to show apart from the presumption drawn by the complainant that there is any act committed by them from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that they could be vicariously held liable. In , the Supreme Court explained the principles governing the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561A of the old Criminal Procedure Code, but refused to quash the proceedings in the facts of the case as no case had been made out for quashing by the appellant. Writ Petition Nos. 335 and 219 of 1986, arose from the present case itself and then my learned brother Puranik, J. quashed the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 335 of 1986 [Sharadchandra Shripad Marathe v. Gurushant Gangadhar Kamble (supra)] had joined the company as a Director only on 19th November, 1985, a few days before the raid was effected and had not participated in any of the earlier proceedings leading to the conspiracy and in Writ Petition No. 219 of 1986, he was of the opinion that the petitioner had nothing to do with conspiracy from 30-9-1983. There is no quarrel and can never be one about the legal propositions made by Mr. Desai as enunciated in the above judgment but regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. I am of the view that the accused Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 28 have not made out case for quashing the proceedings.