Karnataka High Court
D. Shesha Reddy S/O D. Chenchu Rami ... vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRL.P NO 101540 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1 . D. SHESHA REDDY
S/O D. CHENCHU RAMI REDDY
AGE. 77 YEARS,
CHAIRMAN OF DODLA DIARY LIMITED,
R/O. 18 BISHOPWALLACE AVENUE (WEST)
MYLAPORE,
MADRAS-600004
COMPANY ADDRESS
M/S. DODLA DIARY LTD
INDARGI
DIST. KOPPAL
2 . D.SUNEELL (SIC SUNIL) REDDY
S/O. D.SHESHA REDDY
AGE. 50 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF DODLA DIARY LIMITED,
R/O. 8-2-696/697
ROAD NO.12,
BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADV.,)
2
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY INCHARGE LABOUR INSPECTOR
KOPPAL CIRCLE,
KOPPAL-583231
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE QUASHING OF ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER IN C.C.
NO.1440/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL SO ALSO THE ORDER DATED
15.10.2018 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 22A OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this Court calling in question
the proceedings in C.C.No.1440/2008 for the offences
punishable under Sections 22A of the Minimum Wages Act
(for short the Act).
2. Heard Sri. Mallikarjunswami B Hiremath, learned
counsel for petitioners and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP
for respondent-State.
3. Solitary issue that false for consideration in the case
at hand at this juncture is, whether the complaint would be
maintainable in the teeth of the company not being made a
party/accused.
4. It is not in dispute that the offences alleged are ones
punishable under Section 22 A of the Act. Section 22 A reads
as follows:
22A. General provision for punishment
of other offences. - Any employer who
contravenes any provision of this Act or of
any rule or of order made thereunder shall
if no other penalty is provided for such
contravention by this Act, be punishable
with fine which may extend to five hundred
rupees.
Section 22 C deals with offences by companies, Section 22
C reads as follows:
22 C Offences by companies- If the
person committing any offence under this
Act is a company, every person who at the
time the offence was committed, was
incharge of, and was responsible to, the
company for the conduct of the business of
the company as well as the company shall
be deemed to be guilty of the offence and
shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly: Provided that nothing
contained in this sub-section shall render
any such person liable to any punishment
provided in this Act if he proves that the
offence was committed without his
knowledge or that he exercised all due
diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence.
The issue stands covered by the judgment rendered
by the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada vs.
Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012)
5 SCC 661, the Apex Court was considering Section 141 of
the N.I.Act which is in pari materia with Section 22 C of the
Act, the Apex Court holds as follows:
53. It is to be borne in mind that
Section 141 of the Act is concerned with the
offences by the company. It makes the
other persons vicariously liable for
commission of an offence on the part of the
company. As has been stated by us earlier,
the vicarious liability gets attracted when
the condition precedent laid down in Section
141 of the Act stands satisfied. There can
be no dispute that as the liability is penal in
nature, a strict construction of the provision
would be necessitous and, in a way, the
warrant.
56. We have referred to the aforesaid
passages only to highlight that there has to
be strict observance of the provisions
regard being had to the legislative
intendment because it deals with penal
provisions and a penalty is not to be
imposed affecting the rights of persons
whether juristic entities or individuals,
unless they are arrayed as accused. It is to
be kept in mind that the power of
punishment is vested in the legislature and
that is absolute in Section 141 of the Act
which clearly speaks of commission of
offence by the company. The learned
counsel for the respondents have
vehemently urged that the use of the term
"as well as" in the Section is of immense
significance and, in its tentacle, it brings in
the company as well as the director and/or
other officers who are responsible for the
acts of the company and, therefore, a
prosecution against the directors or other
officers is tenable even if the company is
not arraigned as an accused. The words "as
well as" have to be understood in the
context.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis,
we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that
for maintaining the prosecution under
Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a
company as an accused is imperative. The
other categories of offenders can only be
brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of
vicarious liability as the same has been
stipulated in the provision itself. We say so
on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V.
Parekh (supra) which is a three-Judge
Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in
Sheoratan Agarwal (supra) does not
correctly lay down the law and, accordingly,
is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil
Hada (supra) is overruled with the qualifier
as stated in paragraph 51. The decision in
Modi Distilleries (supra) has to be treated to
be restricted to its own facts as has been
explained by us hereinabove."
5. For the aforesaid reasons the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) Proceedings against the petitioners in
C.C.No.1440/2018 pending before the Prl. Civil Judge
and JMFC, Koppal stands quashed.
SD
JUDGE
Vb/-
