LAWS(P&H)-1987-4-12

J R GROVER DIRECTOR OF K D WOOLLEN MILLS P LTD Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF

Decided On April 06, 1987
J R GROVER DIRECTOR OF K D WOOLLEN MILLS P LTD Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner along with three other directors of Messrs K. D. Woollen Mills P. Ltd. , as also the company itself is sought to be proceeded against under section 8 (2) and 8 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, " the Act"), as a result of the complaint (annexure P-1) filed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, on September 21, 1985. As a matter of fact, they have been summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jullundur, to face the trial, vide his order dated September 23, 1984 (annexure P-4 ). The primary submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the facts, as stated in the impugned complaint, annexure P-l, do not even remotely suggest the commission of any offence by the directors of the company, including the petitioner. It is not disputed before me that the lodging of the complaint or prosecution of the directors of a company under the above-noted Act is regulated by section 68 of the Act, the irelevant part of which reads as follows:

(2.) THE precise submission of Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, is that it has nowhere been alleged in the complaint, annexure P-l, that the petitioner or any of the directors was a person in charge and was responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company. In the absence of such an allegation, according to the learned counsel, neither the complainant can lead any evidence to substantiate the same nor is the complaint itself maintainable. All that has been said in this regard in the complaint, annexure P-l, is contained in paragraph 9 of the same which reads as follows:

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find that in the light of the above-noted contents of paragraph No. 9 of the complaint, neither the petitioner nor the other directors like him can possibly be held liable even vicariously for the offences alleged against them.