AMIT ANAND Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Special Case No. 16 of 2012 arising out of Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 05 of 2012 (in Cr. Misc. No.7226 of 2014) and Special Case No. 17 of 2012 arising out of Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 06 of 2012 (in Cr. Misc. No.7409 of 2013).

(2.) The case of the Deputy Superintendent of Police attached with Economic Offence Unit is that on the date of occurrence an inspection of two firms, namely, M/s. Raj Laxami Enterprises and M/s. Diamond Surgical respectively was carried out. It was found that number of materials were being sold on provisional papers without valid cash memos. On the basis of entries in the relevant register, it assessed the loss of sales tax to the tune of around thirteen lacs and four lacs respectively. Further, some of the items do not bear the manufacturer's licence number which violates the Price Control Order punishable under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under the provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Hence, the justification for filing the present Complaint Petitions.

(3.) It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that there is no averment in the Complaint Petition as to which of the accused was in charge and responsible to the company for conduct of business and hence, they are not liable for prosecution on vicarious liability. In support of this proposition, learned counsel for the Petitioners relies on a decision reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 71 (A.K. Singhania Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. & another With Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Vikram Prakash & another) which was a case under the Negotiable Instrument Act of which Sec. 141 being pari materia to Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was considered.