Skip to main content

All partners can't be made accused: HC

All the partners of a company cannot be made accused in a criminal case arising out of a defective product unless there is specific allegation in the complaint regarding responsibility of each of the partners in the conduct of business, the Kerala high court has held.

The ruling by Justice K Ramakrishnan came after considering a petition filed by Mukesh Bhagubhai Patel, Miteshbhai Jeshingbhai Patel, and Gargiben Atulbhai Patel, who are partners of Ahmedabad-based Indica Laboratories.

In the petition filed in the high court, they had challenged the case against them on the file of Karunagappally judicial first class magistrate court naming them as the third, fifth, and sixth accused, respectively.

The case was registered on a complaint filed by Kollam drugs inspector alleging sale of a substandard drug, thereby violating provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate V V Raja argued that they are only sleeping partners and they have nothing to do with the day-to-day conduct of the business and that it was another person who was the working partner. There is no allegation in the complaint to come to the conclusion, even prima facie, that the petitioners have got anything to do with the day-to-day business, the counsel contended.

Against this, public prosecutor Sareena George submitted that as per the Act the burden is on the accused to prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge and consent.

Quashing the case against the petitioners, the court held that the case against them is not maintainable in the absence of any specific allegation regarding their role in the conduct of the business. Merely because they are partners, they cannot be proceeded against and the case against them is liable to be quashed, the court held.

Further, the court pointed out that while it is the burden of the accused to prove that the offence was committed without his knowledge as per Section 34 of the Act, the complaint must mention the act of each partner in the conduct of business. Only if such an allegation is there, the burden shifts to the partner to prove that the act was done without his consent or knowledge, the court held.

The ruling by justice K Ramakrishnan was after considering a petition filed by Mukesh Bhagubhai Patel, Miteshbhai Jeshingbhai Patel, and Gargiben Atulbhai Patel, who are partners of Ahmedabad-based Indica Laboratories.

In the petition filed to the high court, they had challenged the case against them on the file of Karunagappally judicial first class magistrate court naming them as the third, fifth, and sixth accused, respectively.

The case was registered on a complaint filed by Kollam drugs inspector alleging sale of a substandard drug, thereby violating provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate VV Raja argued that they are only sleeping partners and they have nothing to do with the day to day conduct of the business and that it was another person who was the working partner.

There is no allegation in the complaint to come to the conclusion, even prima facie, that the petitioners have got anything to do with the day to day business, the counsel contended.

Against this, public prosecutor Sareena George submitted that as per the Act the burden is on the accused to prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge and consent.

Quashing the case against the petitioners, the court held that the case against them is not maintainable in the absence of any specific allegation regarding their role in the conduct of the business. Merely because they are partners, they cannot be proceeded against and the case against them is liable to be quashed, the court held.

Further, the court pointed out that while it is the burden of the accused to prove that the offence was committed without his knowledge as per section 34 of the Act, the complaint must mention the act of each partner in the conduct of business. Only if such an allegation is there, the burden shifts to the partner to prove that the act was done without his consent or knowledge, the court held.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/All-partners-cant-be-made-accused-HC/articleshow/35039657.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...