CRL.MC No. 2934 of 2006 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P S GOPINATHAN
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, these petitions are dismissed withoutprejudice to the defence of the petitioner
Provisions considered
Judgment
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos. 2934, 3050 & 3058 OF 2006--------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2012C O M M O N
O R D E R~~~~~~~These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure were filed by the 2nd accused in S.T.No.485/2006,477/2006 and 463/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mananthavady. The 2nd respondent herein launched the above prosecution against the petitioner and two others alleging offence under Section 8 and 9 of the KeralaIndustrial Establishments (National & Festival) Holidays Act,1958, in S.T.No.485/2006; and offence under Section 21 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, in the other two cases. Thepetitioner was implicated as the Director of the Glenlevel EstatePvt. Ltd. which is said to have committed the alleged offence. The plea of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Company and that the 3rd respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, is the Managing Director and he alone is liable for the affairs of the Company.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 4threspondent disputes the same. Therefore, the question that Crl.M.C.Nos.2934/2006 etc. 2remains is whether the petitioner is responsible for the conductof the business or the affairs of the Company. 3. Going by the complaint, it is seen that notice was issued to the petitioner and other accused for rectifying the defect. But they didn't rectify the defect. Therefore, show cause notice was also served upon the petitioner. Even then, the defects were not cured and no cause was shown for not launching the prosecution. In the event the petitioner was not responsible for the conduct of the company, he would have intimated the same to the 2nd respondent in reply. Neither any document was produced in this petition to show as to who is the responsible person for the conduct of the affairs of the Company. Therefore, the petitioner, who is the Director of the Companycould not escape from the statutory responsibility and liabilities.
Operative part
In the above circumstance, the 2nd respondent cannot be found fault with for launching the prosecution against the petitioner. In the peculiar facts of the case, the question as to who isresponsible for the affairs of the Company is a matter of evidence. It cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 of Crl.M.C.Nos.2934/2006 etc. 3the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, these petitions fail. 4. In the result, these petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. These cases being pretty old, the trial court is directed to dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)ps/3/8
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, these petitions are dismissed withoutprejudice to the defence of the petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
theMaternity Benefit Act, 1961 — s. 21; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.