MOHM JAVED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 30. 8. 2005, notice for final disposal was issued. From the record, it appears that notice for final disposal has been served on the contesting respondent No. 2 personally. No one appears for the contesting respondent No. 2 though served.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State.

(3.) BY the instant criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crpc, the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint qua the him on the ground that in the complaint there is no averment that the petitioner was in charge of the company and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus Neeta Bhalla and Anr. , 2006 (1) NIJ 97 (SC), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is necessary to specifically aver in the complaint under Sec. 141 that at the time offence was committed, the person accused was incharge of and responsible for conduct of business of company. This averment is in essential requirement of Sec. 141 and has to be made in complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirement of Sec. 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.