MAHENDRA MILLS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx

(2.) xxx xxx xxx

(3.) The complaint is expected to state may be concisely all the ingredients of an offence and equally it is the responsibility of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint to see that in the minimum the ingredients of an offence alleged to have been committed are set out in the complaint. I am unhappy to note that both the public functionaries have dealt with their matters perfunctorily and in a lack-a-daisical manner. Neither the complaint nor the order of the issuance of the process discusses why the Managing Director was being proceeded against. To that extent it can be said that the process issued against the Managing Director was issued without application of mind and so the order of issuance of the process against him by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid matter is required to be set at naught and to that extent this application is allowed. But I make it clear that it would be perfectly open to the learned Magistrate to enquire into this matter if necessary by examining the complainant under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and then decide the question on its own merits. I am sure the learned Magistrate now will keep his attention focussed on the provisions of Section 25 of the Act which lay down that when an offence is committed by a company the officebearers of the company like the Managing Director are liable if and only if they are alleged to be in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence. With the above direction Rule is made partly absolute by quashing the process issued against the accused No. 3 the Managing Director. Rule partly made absolute.