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
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
Post a Comment