REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1129  OF 2006

SUBHANKAR BISWAS ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

SANDEEP META ..  RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

   CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NOS.  1086-

1089  OF  2008

O  R D E R

This order will dispose of all the appeals referred  

to above.

The facts have been taken from criminal appeal No.  

1129/2006. The matter arises out of a complaint under  

Section 19 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act,  

1976.  In the complaint it has been urged that Rules 2,4,6,  

8,  9  and  23  of  the  Standards  of  Weights  and  Measures

(Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 had been violated.  In  

the meantime the appellant also filed an application for  

the   compounding  of  the  offence  and  the  appropriate  

authority directed that the offence be compounded.  This  

however could not go through for the reason that as per the  

allegation several similar offences had been committed by  

the  Company  within  three  years.  An  application  under  

Section 482 was thereafter filed by the Chairman of the  

Company Mr. H.B.Lal and the appellant Subhankar Biswas the  

then Deputy General Manager raising several pleas, one of  

-2-

being based on Section 74 of the Act and the averments made  

in the complaint which did not identify as to who was the  

person  responsible  and  incharge  of  the  affairs  of  the

Company.  It was pointed out that in the complaint the bare  

language of Section 74 had been reproduced without naming any  

body as being responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the  

Company.   The  averment  made  in  the  complaint  which  is  

relevant to the matter is reproduced below:

“That  the  persons  committed  this  offence  

are companies.  So every person at the time of  

offence was in charge of and was responsible to the  

companies for the business of the companies as well  

as the companies shall be  liable to be proceeded  

against the punished accordingly as per section 74  

of  the  Standards  of  Weights  and  Measures  Act,  

1976.”

It was accordingly argued in the High Court that the  

complaint  itself  was  not  maintainable  as  it  did  not

indicate  as  to  who  was  responsible   for  the  day-to-day  

affairs of the Company. After hearing both sides the High  

Court  by  its  order  of  24th March  2005  quashed  the  

proceedings  qua  the  Chairman  Mr.  H.B.Lal  with   the  

following observations:

-3-

“Therefore in the absence  of any specific  

averment regarding the role played by petitioner  

No.1  M.B.Lal,  who  is  the  Chairman  of  the

Corporation and there is nothing to indicate that  

he  was  in  charge  of  and  responsible  to  the  

Corporation relating to its day-to-day affairs of  

the Corporation at the time of commission of the  

alleged offence, the present application deserves  

to be allowed in part and the proceeding against  

the  said  petitioner  No.1  M.B.Lal  is  to  be  

quashed.”

Today,  before  us,  Mr.  Pradeep  Ghosh,  the  learned  

senior  counsel  for  the  appellant,  has  argued  that  the  

allegations against the Chairman of the Company and the  

appellant  before  us  were  identical  and  there  was  no  

distinction whatsoever between the two  and the High Court  

having  quashed  the  proceedings  against  the  Chairman,  a  

similar order ought to have followed for the appellant as  

well.   

Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for

the  respondent-State,  has  however  pointed  out  that  the  

question as to the identity of the person(s) in charge of  

the  day-to-day  affairs  of  the  Company  was  a  matter  of  

evidence and it was therefore imperative that the trial go  

on.

-4-

We  have  considered  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  

learned counsel for the parties.  We find absolutely no  

distinction  between  the  case  of  the  Chairman   and  the  

appellant  and   the  High  Court  has  not  brought  out  any  

distinction between the two. It has to be borne in mind  

that in prosecutions in such like cases no roving enquiry

is permissible and an obligation rests on the prosecution  

to give details so that the persons responsible so that the  

trial can proceed against them.  We are therefore of the  

opinion that the appeal qua the present appellant ought to  

succeed.

We accordingly allow these appeals; set aside the  

order  of  the  High  Court  insofar  it  goes  against  the  

appellant  and  direct  that  the  proceedings  against  the  

appellant shall also stand quashed in all cases.

                   .................J.         (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                                         ....................J.

                                 (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi, April 7, 2011.