Case Note & Summary
The criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was filed by ACC Limited, a cement manufacturer, and its Managing Director, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.333/2015 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere. The proceedings arose from a complaint received on 29 September 2014 by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, alleging that one H.N. Manjunath and M.R. Sundaresh had purchased duplicate and underweight cement bags from Vincent Furtado, the second respondent. The Inspector inspected the cement bags and found discrepancies in the weight of 72 bags. Meanwhile, on 26 September 2014, Mr. Manjunath had informed ACC's call centre about the issue, and ACC's employees visited the site, concluding that the bags were not genuine ACC bags but duplicated and adulterated. ACC lodged a complaint with the Kalasa Police Station on 30 September 2014, leading to the registration of an FIR. Approximately six months later, the Inspector of Legal Metrology filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against Vincent Furtado and all the Board of Directors of ACC Limited under Sections 31, 36(1) and 36(2) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Without any investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 15(1) of the Act on 26 March 2015 against the directors without making the company a party. The trial court took cognizance and issued summons, registering C.C.No.333/2015. The petitioners challenged this before the High Court, arguing that the complaint was not maintainable because the company was not impleaded, the Magistrate failed to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. since the accused were outside the local jurisdiction, there were no sufficient grounds for cognizance under Section 190(a), and the search was conducted at the customer's premises in violation of Section 36 of the Act. The State Public Prosecutor conceded that the proceedings were instituted hastily without notice and sought quashing with liberty to the department to proceed afresh. The petitioners opposed remittal, contending that the complaint itself disclosed no offence against them. The High Court began its consideration by framing the first issue as whether the complaint was maintainable without the company being a party, and referred to Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, which deals with offences by companies. The judgment text ends abruptly after quoting Section 49, without recording a final decision or further reasoning.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a criminal complaint under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 is maintainable against the directors of a company without impleading the company as an accused
Law Points
- Section 49 of Legal Metrology Act
- 2009 - Offences by companies and vicarious liability of directors
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (09) 4
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3195/2017
C.V. NAGESH, YASHODHAR HEGDE, V.M. SHEELVANT, NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., M.S. HARINTH
M/S ACC LIMITED and MR.HARISH BADAMI
STATE OF KARNATAKA and MR.VINCENT FURTADO
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.333/2015 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (Directors of ACC Limited) sought quashing of the order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere taking cognizance and issuing summons in C.C.No.333/2015, and consequently quashing of the entire criminal complaint.
Filing Reason
The complaint was filed alleging that the petitioners' company, ACC Limited, had sold duplicate and underweight cement bags. However, the company was not made a party to the proceedings; only its Board of Directors were arraigned as accused, and no proper inquiry was conducted before issuing summons.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had taken cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the petitioners on 26.03.2015, registering the case as C.C.No.333/2015. No prior challenge or order before this petition.
Issues
Whether a criminal complaint under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 is maintainable against the directors of a company without impleading the company as an accused?
Whether the Magistrate was required to hold an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing summons when the accused resided outside the court's jurisdiction?
Whether there were sufficient grounds for the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(a) of the Cr.P.C.?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the complaint was not maintainable because the company was not made a party.
Petitioners contended that the Magistrate ought to have conducted an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as the offence and the company were outside jurisdiction.
Petitioners submitted that there was no sufficient ground for taking cognizance under Section 190(a) Cr.P.C. and that the search violated Section 36 of the Act.
The State Public Prosecutor admitted that proceedings were instituted in haste without notice and sought quashing with remittal to the department.
Petitioners opposed remittal, arguing that the complaint itself did not disclose any offence against them and no link could be established.
Judgment Excerpts
On 29th September, 2014 a complaint is received by the 1st respondent/Inspector of Legal Metrology from the Police Sub-Inspector... complaining that one Sri H.N. Manjunath and Sri M.R.Sundaresh purchased ACC cement bags from one Vincent Furtado, the 2nd respondent and the cement bags were duplicate and had under-weighed than what was projected on the bags.
the 1st respondent files a charge sheet before the trial Court under Section 15(1) of the Act against all the Board of Directors of the Company without making the Company itself a party.
The company not having been made a party, the criminal case before the trial Court was not maintainable against the Board of Directors of the Company.
the proceedings are vitiated from the word go for having set the criminal law in motion in a reckless manner and the complaint itself does not make out any offence against the petitioners
the first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is, 'Whether the complaint was maintainable without the company being made a party to the proceedings but only the Board of Directors?'
Procedural History
On 29.09.2014, the Inspector of Legal Metrology received a complaint about duplicate and underweight ACC cement bags. On 30.09.2014, ACC Limited lodged a complaint with Kalasa Police Station, and an FIR was registered. After six months, the Inspector filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against Vincent Furtado and all directors of ACC Limited under Sections 31, 36(1), 36(2) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. No investigation was conducted, and on 26.03.2015, a charge sheet was filed under Section 15(1) of the Act against the directors without making the company a party. The trial court took cognizance and issued summons on 26.03.2015, registering C.C.No.333/2015. The petitioners then filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Acts & Sections
- Legal Metrology Act, 2009: 31, 36(1), 36(2), 15(1), 49
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 200, 202, 190(a), 482
