Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008
Date of decision : 16.9.2008
Bureau of Indian Standards .....Appellant
Versus
M/s Perry Mechanical Works (Regd.) Ludhiana & others
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the respondents.
****
S. D. ANAND, J.
The appellant-complainant was non-suited by the learned
Trial Court on a finding that there was want of proof to prove that
G.M. Bakshi, through whom the complaint had been filed, was
authorised to file it. The relevant observations made by the Court in
the context are reproduced as under:-
“Section 34 (ibid) requires that a court shall take
cognizance of offence punishable under the Bureau of
Indian Standards Act, only on a complaint made by or
under the authority of Government or the Bureau etc. In
the complaint, it has been mentioned that Sh. G.M.
Bakshi (CW) has been authorised by Deputy Director
Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008 -2-****
General Bureau of Indian Standards Act, New Delhi vide
authority letter dated 1.5.1998 to file the present
complaint but no such authority letter has seen the light
of the day. Instead another autthority letter dt. 26.6.98
has been proved as Ex. P-4 but a perusal of said
authority letter does not make out that Sh. G.M. Bakshi
(CW) could have been duly authorised by Sh. D.R. Kohli,
Deputy Director General to file present complaint
because in the said authority letter, a reference is
contained about a meeting dt. 24.6.97 in which Deputy
Director General was conferred with power of
authorisation of Sh. G.M. Bakshi to file the present
complaint. Minutes of meeting dt. 24.6.97 vide which the
Deputy Director General may have been conferred
powers to further authorise his subordinate to file
complaint has not been placed and proved on record.
Learned counsel for complainant failed to wipe the mist
from the locus-standi of Sh. G.M. Bakshi for filing present
complaint.”
Apart therefrom, learned Court recorded the following
observations in the context of want of proof to fasten criminal liability
upon the respondents-accused
“A bare perusal of the said provision of the law makes
out that a “company” also includes a ‘firm’ but in order to
hold any person constituting a firm as liable for
Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008 -3-
****
commission of an offence, it must be pleaded and proved
that such a person was incharge and was responsible to
the company for conduct of business. Ion the instant
case, though it has been pleaded by the complainant
that accused no.1 is a partnership firm and accused no. 2
and 3 are its partners, but it has no where been pleaded
by complainant that Dalip Singh and Ravinder Singh
constituting the firm were Incharge and responsible to the
firm. No evidence was collected by the complainant to
make out that at the relevant time i.e. on 14.8.97 when
accused firm was allegedly raided, both accused, namely
Dalip Singh and Ravinder Singh had been the partners of
said concern. In Criminal law, nothing can be left to
supposition. The letter pad Ex. P-3 collected by accused
on 14.8.97 at the time of alleged raid do not mention
Dalip Singh and Ravinder Singh to be the partners of M/s
Perry Mechanical Works (Regd.). There is absolutely no
document on file, which could be referred to now that
said two persons had been constitute M/s Perry
Mechanical Works. The complainant by making a slight
effort could have traced out the constitution of M/s Perry
Mechanical works. With further effort, it could have been
known as to who is Incharge of the accused firm and as
to who was responsible to firm in conduction of its
business. Mere mention that accused facing trial were
Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008 -4-
****
partners of accused No. 1 is not sufficient to fasten
criminal liability upon them. Both witnesses, namely Sh.
Y.K. Sareen and Sh. G.M. Bakshi were asked the source
of their information as to the status of the accused vis-a-
vis the firm but they would not give any satisfactory
answer./ Benefit of this fact must go to the accused.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
persuade me to take a view contrary to the view obtained by the
learned Trial Court on the proven facts and circumstances of the
case.
I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned
Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and
there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the
learned Trial Judge.
Dismissed.
September 16, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE