PREM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 10.12.1993, whereby charge under Section 407 of Indian Penal Code has been ordered to be framed against the petitioners.

(2.) AS per petition, the petitioners are partners in the business of Commission Agents and Government contractors for providing truck service under the name and style of M/s. Prem Goods Carrier, 8-Patel Chowk, Jalandhar. On July 30, 1990, a consignment of Indian made foreign liquor valuing Rs. 4,28,563.92 of 575 cases was entrusted as carrier to the partners of M/s. Prem Goods Carriers by M/s. Asian Roadways Private Limited, Hamira for its transportation to Ghaziabad depot of M/s. Jagatjit Industries Limited. The partners of M/s. Prem Goods Carriers failed to hand over the consignment to the consignee at Ghaziabad (U.P.) and all the partners of the said Carriers and the driver of truck No. DIG-3613 have fraudulently misappropriated the consignment. On these allegations, F.I.R. No. 92 dated 26.8.1990 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 420/407, Indian Penal Code at P.S. Subhana, Tehsil and District Kapurthala.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition. In Som Nath's case (supra) offence against the petitioners therein was under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act which deals with the offences by the Companies and firms, provides that if the person contravening an order made under Section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was incharge of, 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 the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation to that Section further provides that the Company means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association or individuals. It was in context of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act that it was held that in the report submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. there was no allegation that any of the persons was incharge of the business or the conduct of its affairs. In Sat Pal's case (supra), the complaint was under Sections 276(c) and 277 read with Section 278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 278 of the Income-Tax contains an identical provision as that contained in Section 10 of Essential Commodities Act. In Ghanshyam Dass's case (supra), the complaint was for commission of an offence under the Insecticides Act and Section 33(1) of the said Act is again identical to Section 10 of Essential Commodities Act. Thus, these judgments are of no help to the petitioners. In the present case, petitioners have been charged with offence under Section 407 of Indian Penal Code for criminal breach of trust and reading of the F.I.R. as also report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. discloses prima facie case against the petitioners. There is no provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code identical to the one contained in Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, Section 33 of the Insecticides Act or Section 278 of the Income-Tax Act or pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners.