Delhi High Court
Rai Bahadur Choudhry Ruchi Ram ... vs The State on 3 July, 2012
Author: Pratibha Rani
$~3
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% DATE OF DECISION: July 03, 2012
+ CRL.REV.P. 322/2004
RAI BAHADUR CHOUDHRY RUCHI RAM
KHATTAR & SONS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.B.D.Batra, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE .... Respondent
Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated
20.05.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.
Appeal No.178/2002 whereby the impugned order dated
03.07.2002 passed by the learned M.M. convicting the firm and
two partners was modified to the extent that the two partners
were acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge holding
that the pleadings to this effect in the complaint are not
supported by evidence and in the absence of any evidence, it
shall be improper to hold appellants No.2 & 3 guilty. The
findings to this effect recorded by the learned M.M. were
accordingly set aside. However, the firm was convicted and
invoking provisions of Section 25(1) of the Contract Labour
(Abolition & Regulations) Act, 1970, the two partners Rajeev
Khattar and Vikram Khattar were held vicariously liable to
undergo conviction for the firm M/s. Rai Bahadur Choudhry
Ruchi Ram Khattar & Sons and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month each, besides a fine of ` 1,000/-
each for all the offences i.e. in all, a fine of ` 11,000/-,
in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple
imprisonment for 7 days.
2. The contention of counsel for the revisionist is that once
the Court has given a finding to the effect that in the absence
of any evidence to support the pleadings in the complaint, it
shall be improper to hold appellants No.2 and 3 guilty, then
how with the aid of Section 25(1) of the said Act they could be
convicted under that Section which is not even penal in
character.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and
learned APP for the State and gone through the impugned
judgment.
4. There is apparent contradiction in the finding returned by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while disposing of the criminal
appeal. The relevant portion of the impugned order needs to be
extracted to bring on record the contradictory finding resulting
in grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioners No.2 & 3.
"As per prosecution case, the appellant No.1 is the firm
and appellants No.2 and 3 are its partners.
I have gone through the statements of the sole
prosecution witness PW1 Mrs.Roopa Bharat. It has not
been deposed by the witness that appellants no.2 and 3
were responsible for the day to day business and affairs of
the company. Thus, the pleadings to this effect in the
complaint are not supported by evidence. In the absence
of any evidence to this effect, it shall be improper to hold
appellants no.2 and 3 guilty. The finding to this effect
thus, recorded by the ld. trial court, is set aside.
Appellants no.2 and 3 are acquitted and the appeal to that
extent is allowed."
5. Then in the concluding paragraph, the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge has come to the following conclusion:-
"From the evidence and material on record, it is
established that Rajiv Khattar and Vikram Khattar, were
the partners of the appellant company. They were in
charge and responsible for the conduct of its business at
the time of commission of offence. Thus, they are liable to
be proceeded against and punished for the offence
committed by the company. They have not proved that
the offence was committed without their knowledge or
that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence. Thus, invoking the provisions
of Section 25(1) of the Act, the order on sentence dated
3.7.2002, is modified. Rajiv Khattar and Vikram Khattar on
behalf of the company, are vicariously held liable to
undergo conviction for the firm M/s. R.B.Choudhary Ruchi
Ram Khattar and Sons and shall undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month each, besides a fine of `
1,000/- each, for all the 11 offences i.e. in all, a fine of `
11,000/-, in default of payment of fine, Simple
Imprisonment for 7 days. Trial Court Record be sent back
along with a copy of the order. Appeal file be consigned to
Record Room".
6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has returned the finding
that there is no evidence to support the pleadings in the
complaint to the effect that the appellants No.2 and 3 were
responsible for conduct of day-to-day business of appellant
No.1-firm and thereby acquitted them. It is just not
understandable as to how without there being any material on
record, the learned ASJ could have arrived at the conclusion
that the two partners Rajeev Khattar and Vikram Khattar were
In-charge and responsible for conduct of day-to-day business of
the firm at the time of commission of the alleged offence and
thereby holding them vicariously liable to undergo sentence for
the firm.
7. Learned APP for the State submits that acquittal of
petitioners No.2 & 3 has not been challenged by the State and
thus the same has attained finality.
8. In view of the finding returned by the learned ASJ to the
effect that in the absence of any evidence that the petitioners
No.2 and 3 were responsible for day-to-day business of the
company, the order sentencing them to undergo imprisonment
for one month each, is patently illegal and impugned order to
that extent holding petitioners No.2 & 3 vicariously liable being
perverse has to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner No.1 (the firm) is not challenging its conviction and
the same may be maintained and the fine which already stands
paid may be treated as fine paid by the firm and the
substantive sentence imposed upon the partners may be
waived.
10. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the
acquittal of the two partners i.e. petitioners No.2 & 3, which
has not been challenged by the State, they could not have
been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for conviction of the
firm and to that extent the impugned order may be modified.
Learned APP for the State has relied upon the report AIR 2005
Supreme Court 2622 Standard Chartered Bank and
others v. Directorate of Enforcement and others wherein
it was held that there is no immunity to companies from
prosecution merely because it is in respect of offences for
which punishment of imprisonment is mandatory. In such cases
in lieu of imprisonment fine can be imposed. Relying upon the
said decision, she submits that the order on sentence imposed
upon the firm may also be accordingly modified.
11. Taking into consideration the fact that after acquittal of
petitioners No.2 and 3, they have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month each, apart from
payment of fine, on being held vicariously liable, there is
manifest error on record which needs to be corrected by this
Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In T.N.Dhakkal
v. James Basnett (2001) 10 SCC 419, it was held that the
High Court has revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
and can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to correct
miscarriage of justice. This is a case where the power of
revision vested in this Court has to be exercised under the
exceptional circumstances referred to above, as there had
been miscarriage of justice qua the petitioners No.2 & 3 by
sentencing them after holding that they were not responsible
for conduct of day-to-day business of the company.
12. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the impugned order
sentencing the two partners i.e. petitioners No.2 & 3 to
rigorous imprisonment for one month each is set aside. The
conviction of petitioner No.1 i.e. the firm is maintained and the
fine of Rs.1,000/- each paid for all the 11 offence i.e. in total
Rs.11,000/- for all the offences shall be treated as fine paid by
petitioner No.1-firm.
13. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms and
stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Trial
Court record be sent back forthwith.
PRATIBHA RANI, J
July 03, 2012
„dc‟
