MR. VIGNESHWAR GOPAL KRISHNA BHAT DIRECTOR, (ACTUALLY COMPANY SECRETARY) AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the above said, the petitioners have called in questions, the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 09.03.2018 signed by the learned Magistrate on 12.03.2018 in taking cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 8 and 6 of Equal Remuneration Act 1976 and issuing process against the petitioners who are arranging as accused No. 1 and 2.

(2.) It is seen from the records that was logded alleging offences under sections 8 and 6 of Equal Remuneration Act 1976 making the above said persons as accused Nos. 1 and 2 and other persons i.e Mr. Devadas P.N and Mr. Venu Gopalan as remaining accused persons who are contractors of M/s. Sobha Dream Acres and M/s. Rain Forest. The complaint averment discloses that the accused are the owners of M/s. Sobha limited (M/s. Rain Forest) and they have committed various offences as alleged in the complaint particularly under setion 8 and 6 of the equal Remuneration Act 1976. The whole of the allegation made in the complaint are referable to the company and that is accused persons are the officers attacked to the company that is accused No. 1 Mr. Vighneshwar Gopal Bhat, the director and Mr. N.K Praveen the Executive Vice-President of M/s. Sobha Limited.

(3.) The main contention of the Petitioners is that when the allegations are made against the Company, the company should be made as a party and then explain when exactly the roles of the other accused persons who are the director or the Executive Vice President of the said company in order to attract the provision as alleged. Without making the company a party, the complaint itself is not maintainable. In this context the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Anneta Hada v. Godfather travels and tours (P) Ltd reported in (2012)5 SCC 661 . Though the said decision was rendered under the Negotiable Instrument Act, the principal laid down in the said case play a dominant role, where the apex court summarizing the liability of a company and the directors has categorically stated that the corporate criminal liability has been in detailed considered by the Apex Court and held that the Company is a jurisdictional person and can be fastened with a criminal liability, for that, the prosecution of in-charge of the company only without arraigning the company is not permissible. Therefore, it goes without saying that the Company shall be made primarily as a party and other persons who are in the helm of affairs of the said company shall also be arrayed as accused persons who are responsible with reference to the day today affairs of the Company.