LAWS(GJH)-1983-9-30

ALKA M SHAH Vs. PURSHOTTAM B PATEL

Decided On September 26, 1983
Alka M Shah Appellant
V/S
Purshottam B Patel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Managing Director of Maheshwari Mills Co Ltd. has filed this petition for quashing the process issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. VIII, Ahmedabad in Criminal Complaint No. 28687/81 filed by the Octroi Inspector. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad.

(2.) The opponent No.1 Octroi Inspector filed the aforesaid complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that Maheshwari Millis Company was a limited Company and that the Manager of the said Mills (accused No. 1) through his representative lndravadanbhai Patel (accused No.3) brought 6 cases containing Yarn-Even ness-Tester machine within the limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 23.9.81 at about 6.15 p.m. in Ambassador Taxi No. G.R.T. 14 without paying Octroi duty to the tune of Rs. 12.65905 P. and thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 398 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the said complaint the accused No.1 was shown as Maheshwari Mills Co. Ltd. through its Manager. The petitioner was shown as accused no. 2 as she was Managing Director of the Company, Accused No.3 was named as Indravadanbhai Patel, who was Assistant Accountant of the said Mheshwari Mill Co. On the said complaint, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had issued summons to all the accused including the petitioner.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Metropolitan Magistrate ought not to have issued any process against the petitioner-accused No.2 because in the complaint it is nowhere averred by the complainant that the accused No.2 has committed any offence or that she was connected in any way with conduct of the business of the Company at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshottam Das Jhunjunwala1, and the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi.2