SUBHANKAR BISWASversusSANDEEP META

•                       [2011] 4 S.C.R. 799


                      SUBHANKAR BISWAS ·                             A
                                  v.
                          SANDEEP META
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2006)

                          APRIL 07, 2011
                                                                     B
       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                      PRASAD, JJ.]

         Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 - s. 19 -
    Complaint under, against Chairman of the Company and             c
    appellant, then Deputy General Manager, alleging violation
    of rr. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 23 of the Rules - However, the
    averments in the complaint not identifying as to who was the
    person responsible and incharge of the affairs of the Company
    - Meanwhile, application filed for the compounding of the        D
    offence - Appropriate authority directing compounding of
    offenc·e but the order could not be carried out - Application
    u/s. 482 Cr.P. C. filed by the Chairman of the Company and
    the appellant, then Deputy General Manager - High Court
    quashing the proceedings qua the Chairman - On appeal,           E
    held: There is no distinction between the case of the
    Chairman and the appellant - High Court did not bring out
    any distinction between the two - In prosecutions in such like
    cases no roving enquiry is permissible and an obligation rests
    on the prosecution to give details so that the trial can be      F
    proceeded against the persons responsible - Therefore,
    direction issued to quash the proceedings against the
    appellant in all cases - Standards of Weights and Measures
    (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - rr. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and
    23.
                                                                     G
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1129 of 2006 etc.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2005 of the High
                                 799                                 H
    800       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 4 S.C.R.


A   Court at Calcutta in CRR No. 2086 of 2004.

                                     WITH

    Crl. A. Nos. 1086, 1087, 1088 & 1089 of 2008.

B       Pradeep Ghosh, Parijat Sinha, Reshmi Rea Singh, Mrinal
    Kanti Mandal, Vikram Ganguly, S.C. Ghosh for the Appellant.

          Avijit Bhattacharjee, Sarbani Kar for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered
c
                                  ORDER
          This order will dispose of all the appeals referred to above.

         The facts have been taken from criminal appeal No. 1129/
D   2006. The matter arises out of a complaint under Section 19
    of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. In the
    complaint it has been urged that Rules 2,4,6, 8, 9 and 23 of
    the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged
    Commodities) Rules 1977 had been violated. In the meantime
E   the appellant also filed an application for the compounding of
    the offence and the appropriate authority directed that the
    offence be compounded. This however could not go through for
    the reason that as per the allegation several similar offences
    had been committed by the Company within three years. An
F   application under Section 482 was thereafter filed by the
    Chairman of the Company Mr. H.B.Lal and the appellant
    Subhankar Biswas the then Deputy General Manager raising
    several pleas, one of being based on Section 74 of the Act and
    the averments made in the complaint which did not identify as
G   to who was the person responsible and incharge of the affairs
    of the Company. It was pointed out that in the complaint the
    bare language of Section 74 had been reproduced without
    naming any body as being responsible for the day-to-day affairs
    of the Company. The averment made in the complaint which is
H   relevant to the matter is reproduced below:
•        SUBHANKAR BISWAS v. SANDEEP META                      801


        "That the persons committed this offence are companies.       A
        So every person at the time of offence was in charge of
        and was responsible to the companies for the business
        of the companies as well as the companies shall be liable
        to be proceeded against the punished accordingly as per
        section 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act,      B
        1976."

        It was accordingly argued in the High Court that the
    complaint itself was not maintainable as it did not indicate as
    to who was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the
    Company. After hearing both sides the High Court by its order     C
    of 24th March 2005 quashed the proceedings qua the
    Chairman Mr. H.B.Lal with the following observations:

               "Therefore in the absence of any specific averment
        regarding the role played by petitioner No.1 M.8.Lal, who     D
        is the Chairman of the Corporation and there is nothing to
        indicate that he was in charge of and responsible to the
        Corporation relating to its day-to-day affairs of the
        Corporation at the time of commission of the alleged
        offence, the present application deserves to be allowed in    E
        part and the proceeding against the said petitioner No.1
        M.B.Lal is to be quashed."

         Today, before us, Mr. Pradeep Ghosh, the learned senior
    counsel for the appellant, has argued that the allegations
    against the Chairman of the Company and theappellant before
                                                                      F
    us were identical and there was no distinction whatsoever
    between the two and the High Court having quashed the
    proceedings against the Chairman, a similar order ought to have
    followed for the appellant as well.
                                                                      G
          Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the
    respondent-State, has however pointed out that the question
    as to the identity of the person(s) in charge of the day-to-day
    affairs of the Company was a matter of evidence and it was
    therefore imperative that the trial go on.                        H
    802      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                         •
A         We have considered the arguments advanced by the
    learned counsel for the parties. We find absolutely no distinction
    between the case of the Chairman and the appellant and the
    High Court has not brought out any distinction between the two.
    It has to be borne in mind that in prosecutions in such like cases
s   no roving enquiry is permissible and an obligation rests on the
    prosecution to give details so that the persons responsible so
    that the trial can proceed against them. We are therefore of the
    opinion that the appeal qua the present appellant ought to
    succeed.
c        We accordingly allow these appeals; set aside the order
    of the High Court insofar it goes against the appellant and direct
    that the proceedings against the appellant shall also stand
    quashed in all cases.
    N.J.                                           Appeals allowed.