S GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for self and for K. B. Asthana, C. J.) :-The question of law that requires consideration in these references is whether under Section 100 of the Factories Act, 1948, can only, one or more than one of the Directors of a Company be prosecuted for an offence for which the occupier of a factory is punishable under that Act.

(2.) IN R. C. Sharma v. State of U. P., AIR 1956 All. 4 a learned Single Judge held that all the partners are liable to be prosecuted. On the other hand in Hari Krishna v. State, AIR 1959 All. 794 another learned Single Judge held that only one of the partners could be prosecuted even though the Company had not nominated any Director or partner as the occupier of the factory.

(3.) SUB-Section (2) clearly and specifically provides that any one of the directors of the company may be prosecuted and punished. There is no room for any doubt that it precludes prosecution of more than one director. If a director has been nominated under the Proviso, that director alone is liable to prosecution as the occupier of the factory. In such case the prosecuting agency has no choice to proceed against other directors. But if the company has not made the nomination under the Proviso, the main provision comes into play, under which the prosecuting agency has a choice to proceed against any one of the directors of the company. SUB-Section (2) clearly precludes more than one Director from being roped in.