AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.R. Prasad
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 3.5.2011 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in c.P. Case No. 2198 of 2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 204, 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, who happens to be the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited.
A complaint bearing C.P. Case No. 2198 of 2009 was filed by the complainant stating therein that originally his date of birth was recorded in the document as 1.6.1954 and as such, he was supposed to retire on superannuation in the year 2014 but the accused persons by hatching conspiracy manufactured a document Form B wherein date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1.6.1945 and thereby he was made to retire muchearly than 2014.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation made in the complaint it would appear that the petitioner has nowhere been alleged to have done anything in getting the date of birth changed in Form B, rather whatever allegation is thre that has been levelled against the accused No. 1, who is not the petitioenr herein and therefore, the petitioner being Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharat Coking Coal Limited cannot be allowed to be prosecuted under vicarious liability for omission or commission of the offence done by other persons and therefore, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is bad and is fit to be set aside.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the petitioner in his petition has nowhere made statement that the petitioner was not In-chrge of day-to-day affairs of the Company.
It is well settled that the Penal Code save and except some of provisions specially providing therefor does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a party who is not changed directly for a commission of offence.
Here in the instant case, the petitioner being Chairman-cum-Managing Director has never been alleged specifically to have changed the date of birth in Form B and thereby no offence under which cognizance has been taken is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, entire criminal prosecution of C.P. Case No. 2198 of 2009 including the order taking cognizance is hereby set aside.
In the result, this application is allowed.