Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the chairman, executive director/executive director, etc., from a company, cannot be called in a criminal case

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the chairman, executive director/executive director, etc., from a company, cannot be called in a criminal case if specific allegations about their special role are not suspected of being complaints, because they cannot be maintained for criminals. The story of the company's actions. Somewhat because they are chairmen, executive director/executive director and/or deputy general manager and/or planners/supervisors A1 & A6, without specific roles associated with them in their capacity, they cannot be arranged as defendants, more especially they cannot Ask for responsibility for violations committed by A1 & A6 ', the Supreme Court was observed in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe vs Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. and others, personal complaints. 

 

Submitted by someone on the Special Mangalore Company Economic Zone Ltd. and the contractor company accused that they had entered without permission to the complainant property and had a demolice in a compound wall while putting a pipeline. The complainants have also arranged other directors and officials from companies that accuse violations can be punished under Section 406, 418, 420, 427, 447, 506 and 120B read with part 34 of the Criminal Code.

The judge issued a process of the defendant. Then, the session court putting aside this order, and the same thing was enforced by the High Court, by dismissing the revised petition submitted by the complainant. Appealed, the complainant believes that at the defendant's summons, what to do is considered whether the case of the Prima Facie is based on a complainant statement in the oath and the material produced at this stage and detailed examination on excess is not needed.

On behalf of the defendant, it argued that the summons/process that published by the court was a very serious problem and therefore unless there were specific accusations and roles that were associated with each accused of more than bald statements, judges should not be issued. The process. The court noted that unless the bald statement accused of conspiring with general intentions to put the pipeline in the nature of the complainant's schedule, without legitimate authority and whatever rights they did to violate into the schedule. Property complainants and destroying compound walls, there were no other charges that at that time they were present.

The court also pays attention to observations made in Viz's assessment. Saiyed v meant v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 Pepsi Foods Ltd and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Investigation Bureau, (2015) 4 SCC 609. ' 'The judge who was studied had to record his satisfaction about the case of the Prima Facie against the defendant who managed the Director, Corporate Secretary, and Company Director and the role played by them in their respective capacity, namely Sine Qua Non to start the criminal process against them.

Looking for an average and charges in complaints, there are no accusations and/or specific averages in connection with their roles played by their capacity as chairman, executive director, executive director, Deputy General Manager & Executor. Just because they are chairman, executive director/executive director and/or deputy general manager and/or planners / A1 & A6 supervisors, without the specific roles that are associated and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arranged as defendants. , More especially they cannot be held accountable for violations committed by A1 & A6. ', said the court while rejecting the appeal. Criminal law cannot be moved as a matter and the judge when ordering his call must record satisfaction about the case of the prima facie against the defendant, Judge Mr. Shah, and as Justice Bopanna observed. Contact Top Notch Law Firms for Criminal Lawyers in Chennai India. Rajendra Law Office is one of the Best Law Firms for Criminal Litigation In Tamil Nadu India