Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.21 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
In the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceutical Ltd. (supra), it was observed that "liability depends on the role plays in the affairs of a company and not on designation or status. If being a director or manager or secretary was enough to cast criminal liability, the section would have said so. Instead of 'every person' the section would have said 'every director, manager or secretary in a company is liable'...etc. The legislature is aware that it is a case of criminal liability which means serious consequences so far as the person sought to be made liable is concerned. Therefore, only persons who can be said to be connected with the commission of a crime at the relevant time have been subjected to action."
Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr vs R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya on 13 September, 2006
22. On behalf of the petitioners, reference was also made to the Apex Court decision in the case of Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. v. R.B.S. Channabasavardhya reported in 2006(7) Supreme 168, in support of the contention that what is required is a clear statement of fact so as to enable the Court to arrive at a prima facie opinion that the accused are vicariously liable. It was submitted that before a person can be made vicariously liable, strict compliance of the statutory requirements would be insisted.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
In course of submission, reference was also made to the decision in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. . The Apex Court in the said case dealt with the High Court's power under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was specifically observed that such power can be exercised sparingly and that too, in the rarest of rare cases.
State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs P.P. Sharma, Ias And Anr on 2 April, 1991
26. Relying upon the decision in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Anr. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 192, it was submitted by Mr. Bagchi that there could be no scope for treating affidavits or documents as sought to have been relied upon by the petitioners/accused persons as evidence. In the said case the Apex Court observed that it would be a serious error in putting an end to the prosecution at its inception by going into merits in a pre-trial on consideration of the affidavits and documents which, unless proved to be true and reliable in regular trial, cannot form the basis of any decision regarding commission of offence.
K.P.G. Nair vs Jindal Menthol India Ltd. on 12 September, 2000
Similarly, in the case of K.P.G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd. reported in 2000 Cr. LJ 1213, it was held that question whether or not petitioner had resigned as director before issuance of offending cheques is a disputed question of fact.
State Of Punjab vs Kasturi Lal And Ors on 28 July, 2004
29. Attention of the Court was drawn to the decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal and Ors. , wherein it was held that exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code should be the exception and not the rule. The Apex Court observed that "in respect of contraventions by a company, besides the company itself every person who was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time when the contravention was committed and any director, manager or secretary or other officer of the company with whose consent or connivance or because of whose neglect, the offence has been committed could be prosecuted and punished."
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Awadh Kishore Gupta And Ors on 18 November, 2003
In the case of State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors. reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 353, the Apex Court observed that it was impermissible for High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which was essentially a matter for trial. It was further held that the annexures to the petitions under Section 482 of Cr. PC cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved.
Bharat Kumar Modi And Ors. vs Pennar Paterson Securities Ltd. And ... on 12 April, 1999
32. This Court's attention was also invited to the decision in the case of Bharat Kumar Modi and Ors. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1999 Cr. LJ 3803, in support of the stand that documents like Form 32 indicating that the petitioners were not directors at the relevant time are to be proved in trial.