JUDGMENT
Bahri, J.
(1) M/S. Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home through its Director Dr. P. Sharma has filed this revision petition seeking setting aside of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi dated July 31, 1989 by which-the had allowed the revision petition filed before her against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated June 8, 1987 by which the complaint filed by Prem Shanker had been dismissed and it was held that there was sufficient material to proceed against Dr. Sharma, Director. Dr. Sucheta Datta and M/s. Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home for an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420. Indian Penal Code.
(2) I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner at the preliminary stage and have gone through the trial Court file as well as the impugned order. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge appears to be well based because taking the allegations made in the complaint and prima facie proved by leading preliminary evidence by the complainant it is evident that a false representation was made by the accused with regard to the availability of facility of air-conditioned room for the patients which facility was not actually available and the complainant because of the said false representation got his brother admitted in the said Nursing Home for an operation and he allegedly had suffered lot of inconvenience for want of air-conditioned facility. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, did not find any proof prima facie to proceed against. Dr. S.C. Madan turn an offence punishable under Section 336 and 338 or 420 Indian Penal Code .
(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the most the allegation made in the complaint would show only a civil dispute between the parties as non-providing of certain facilities as assured would not be of any criminal liability. I am afraid it is not possible to continence this contention. It is well settled law that only in case allegations made. in the complaint do not at all make out any offence that the High Court can quash the proceedings. Present is nut such a case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that after the order had been made by the Additional sessions Judge, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate just in routine passed the order of summoning the petitioner and the other two accused without giving any reasons and he had made reference to Ram Lal and Anr. versus Parvinder Singh Monga & Anr. Crl. M.(M) 1136 of 1983 decided on January 13, 1986 by H. C. Goei, J. (1) (As his lordship then was. In this judgment a non-speaking order of summoning has been made by the Magistrate and this Court had quashed the order and had remanded the case back to the Magistrate for deciding it afresh. However, in the present case the reasons for a summoning the accused stand elaborately given in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and thus this Magistrate had no option but to direct the summoning of the accused in the light of the order of the superior Court.
(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that the petitioner which is not and individual could not have been summoned for the offence of cheating he had made reference to Sunil Chandra Banerjee Vs. Krishna Chandra Nath; A.I.R. 1949 Calcutta 6S9.(2) There is no merit in this contention. The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court was interpreting the provisions of Section 169 and 171 of the Indian Companies Act and held that for Section 179 to apply the proceedings must be against the Company and where the criminal proceedings for cheating are not against the Company but against the Manager of the Company’s branch office the proceeding cannot be said to be against the company. J. do not understand how anything said in this judgment is of any help in support of the contention raised by the learned council turn the petitioner that a Company cannot be held to be guilty of the offence of cheating. Counsel for the petitioner has Jso made reference to Esso Standard inc. Vs. Udharam Bhagwanda Japanwalla 1971 Bombay Law Reporter 417(3). However, this judgment does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as it has been held that the company can be held liable for an offence involving proof of means read when such an offence is committed by its officer provided it it is proved as a matter of fact that in committing the offence the officer was acting within the limits of his authority on behalf of the company. One accused is the Director of the Company in the present case who is stated to have made the false representation on which the complainant had acted and then it is the case of the complainant that certain advertisements had been made and pamphlets had been distributed containing such false representation on behalf of the said Nursing Home. So, it would be question of fact to be decided during the trial whether the Director accused had acted within the limits uf In’s authority on behalf of the Nursing Home or not when he he made false representation which amount to cheating.
(5) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that as Section 420, Indian Penal Code . contemplates award of sentence of imprisonment and also of fine. and as the Nursing Home itself cannot be awarded any sentence of imprisonment, thus the Nursing Home could not have been prosecuted for an offences of cheating and he has made reference to State of Maharashtra versus M/s. Syndicate Transport Co. . It is now settled law that even if in some offences, a minimum sentence if imprisonment is prescribed, still the corporate body like a Company can be convicted of an offence and can be imposed only a sentence of the fine (See Full Bench decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus J. B. Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. 1975 Crl. L.J. 1148)(5) :
(6) I hence find no merit in this criminal revision which I dismiss in liming. Trial Court record be returned immediately.