RAGHUNATH PRASAD PODDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule, though it is ready for hearing in all respects, has been wrongly listed under the heading Applications instead of the heading 'For Hearing.' Be that as it may, with consent of both the parties the Rule is taken up for hearing.

(2.) The only point urged by Mr. Sen Gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioners, is that the complaint (Annexure A to the Rule petition) does not disclose how the petitioners-accused were involved in the matter. Mr. Roy, appearing for the State, has submitted that if the order of the learned Magistrate is defective he may be directed to frame another charge.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Roy is not tenable and it is besides the point. The petitioners were proceeded against on the ground that there was excess quantity of sugar in the premises of the firm. The petitioners Nos. 1-3 are described as the partners of the firm. Petitioner No. 4, is the firm. Now, from the report, which is the charge-sheet, it does not appear how the petitioners Nos. 1-3 were responsible for the conduct of the business. Section 10 of the B.C. Act lays down that if the person contravening an order is a company, every person who was in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of contravention Merely because the petitioners Nos. 1-3 are described as partners, that does not disclose how they were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. Thus, plainly, the ingredients of section 10 have not been satisfied. Under section 11 of the same Act, no court can take cognizance of any offence except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who ill a public servant all defined in section 21 of the I.P.C. Here, the authority making the report, has not given the facts constituting the offences on the part of the partners. No prosecution can be carried on such report. The point is concluded by several decisions. The decisions reported in 1978 Cr. L.J. 105, (Kerala), 1979 Cr1. L.J. 760 (Patna High Court) and 1977 C.H.N. 1073 conclude the point. The last mentioned case, namely, 1977 C H.N. 1073, was under Food Adulteration Act, but the provisions of that Act are identical with the B.C. Act.