Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ajit Kumar Mahato vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 16 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 2406 of 2022
With
CRAN 1 of 2022
Ajit Kumar Mahato
VS.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya,
Mr. Dibyo Mukherjee.
For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur,
Mr. Dipankar Paramanick.
Hearing concluded on : 16.01.2025
Judgment on : 16.01.2025
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :
1. The present revisional application has been preferred against an
order 23.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd
Court, Purulia in G.R. Case No. 72/2014, which arose out of
Purulia (Sadar) Police Station Case No. 15/2014 dated 18.01.2014
under Sections 468/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rejecting
thereby the petition dated 14.01.2020.
Page 2
2. By the said order the prayer for discharge of the petitioner Ajit Kr.
Mahato (deed writer) praying for discharge has been rejected.
3. In spite of due service there is no representation on behalf of the de
facto complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the State has placed the case diary.
5. It appears from the petition of complaint filed before the Trial Court
under Section 156(C) Cr. PC that the allegations against the
accused persons are as follows.
“That another deed being No. 4377/2007 has
been registered wherein the name of the mother
of the complainant Balika Mahato has been
written and the same has been identified by
Sahadeb Mahato s/o Lal Mahato of Village-
Podlara but the photo which has been pasted
that is not the photo of the mother of the
complainant and there is no such woman in the
village of Podlara and Bidyut Mahato Son of
Yudhistir Mahato also is one of the witness in
the deed.
The facts stated above it is clearly
established that the accused No. (1) Dipak
Mahato S/o Ajani Mahato (2) Sahadeb
Mahato S/o Lal Mahato (3) Bidyut Mahato
S/o Yudhistir Mahato (4) Badal Mahato Son
of Sarat Mahato inconnivence to each other
after pasting photo in place of this
complainant who is the owner of the land,
another photo has been pasted of a woman
who is not of village-podlara and Dipak
Mahato son of Ajani Mahato also a vendor in the
deed No. 4376/2007 where there is an
endorsement about the receipt of the
consideration money and in another deed
No.4377/2007 he has been sighted a witness in
the said deed.”
6. This Court relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court:-
Page 3
reported in 2021(14) SCALE, wherein the Court held:-
“42. Section 141 of the NI Act stipulates that if a
company is alleged to have committed an offence
under Section 138, then every person who „was
in charge of, and responsible to, the company for
the conduct of the business of the company‟ shall
also be deemed guilty of the offence. The proviso
provides an exception if she proves that the
offence was committed without her knowledge or
that she had exercised due diligence. In Sunil
Bharati Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609, a
three judge Bench of this Court observed that
the general rule is that criminal intent of a group
of people who undertake business can be
imputed to the Company but not the other way
around. Only two exceptions were provided to
this general rule: (i) when the individual has
perpetuated the commission of offence and there
is sufficient evidence on the active role of the
individual; and (ii) the statute expressly
incorporates the principle of vicarious liability.
Justice Sikri writing for a three-judge Bench
observed:
“43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated
the commission of an offence on behalf of a
company can be made an accused, along with
the company, if there is sufficient evidence of
his active role coupled with criminal intent.
Second situation in which he can be
implicated is in those cases where the
statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine
of vicarious liability, by specifically
incorporating such a provision.
44. When the company is the offender, vicarious
liability of the Directors cannot be imputed
automatically, in the absence of any statutory
provision to this effect. One such example is
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881. In Aneeta Hada [Aneeta Hada v.
Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC
661 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 350 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri)
241] , the Court noted that if a group of persons
that guide the business of the company have the
Page 4criminal intent, that would be imputed to the
body corporate and it is in this backdrop, Section
141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be
understood. Such a position is, therefore,
because of statutory intendment making it a
deeming fiction. Here also, the principle of “alter
ego”, was applied only in one direction, namely,
where a group of persons that guide the
business had criminal intent, that is to be
imputed to the body corporate and not the vice
versa. Otherwise, there has to be a specific
act attributed to the Director or any other
person allegedly in control and
management of the company, to the effect
that such a person was responsible for the
acts committed by or on behalf of the
company.”
7. There is no allegation against the petitioner herein, as he has
only been referred to as the deed writer. No other acts showing
any criminal intent on his part has either been stated or shown,
even prima facie.
8. From the petition of complaint and other materials on record
including the case diary, it is clear that the ingredients required
to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner herein
are totally absent in this case and allowing the proceeding to
continue in respect of the petitioner in such circumstances,
would clearly amount to abuse of the process of law.
9. The revisional application being CRR 2406 of 2022 is
allowed.
10. The order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 2nd Court, Purulia in G.R. Case No. 72/2014, which
Page 5
arose out of Purulia (Sadar) Police Station Case No. 15/2014
dated 18.01.2014 under Sections 468/420/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, rejecting thereby the petition dated 14.01.2020, is
hereby quashed against the petitioner namely, Ajit Kumar
Mahato.
11. The trial in respect of the other accused persons shall proceed in
accordance with law, expeditiously.
12. The learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to invoke the provision
of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. in accordance with law among others,
during trial if deemed necessary in respect of the petitioner.
13. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
15. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for
necessary compliance.
16. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]
[ad_1]
Source link