Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008 Date of decision : 16.9.2008 Bureau of Indian Standards .....Appellant Versus M/s Perry Mechanical Works (Regd.) Ludhiana & others ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the respondents. **** S. D. ANAND, J. The appellant-complainant was non-suited by the learned Trial Court on a finding that there was want of proof to prove that G.M. Bakshi, through whom the complaint had been filed, was authorised to file it. The relevant observations made by the Court in the context are reproduced as under:- “Section 34 (ibid) requires that a court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, only on a complaint made by or under the authority of Government or the Bureau etc. In the complaint, it has been mentioned that Sh. G.M. Bakshi (CW) has been authorised by Deputy Director Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008 -2- **** General Bureau of Indian Standards Act, New Delhi vide authority letter dated 1.5.1998 to file the present complaint but no such authority letter has seen the light of the day. Instead another autthority letter dt. 26.6.98 has been proved as Ex. P-4 but a perusal of said authority letter does not make out that Sh. G.M. Bakshi (CW) could have been duly authorised by Sh. D.R. Kohli, Deputy Director General to file present complaint because in the said authority letter, a reference is contained about a meeting dt. 24.6.97 in which Deputy Director General was conferred with power of authorisation of Sh. G.M. Bakshi to file the present complaint. Minutes of meeting dt. 24.6.97 vide which the Deputy Director General may have been conferred powers to further authorise his subordinate to file complaint has not been placed and proved on record. Learned counsel for complainant failed to wipe the mist from the locus-standi of Sh. G.M. Bakshi for filing present complaint.” Apart therefrom, learned Court recorded the following observations in the context of want of proof to fasten criminal liability upon the respondents-accused “A bare perusal of the said provision of the law makes out that a “company” also includes a 'firm' but in order to hold any person constituting a firm as liable for Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008 -3- **** commission of an offence, it must be pleaded and proved that such a person was incharge and was responsible to the company for conduct of business. Ion the instant case, though it has been pleaded by the complainant that accused no.1 is a partnership firm and accused no. 2 and 3 are its partners, but it has no where been pleaded by complainant that Dalip Singh and Ravinder Singh constituting the firm were Incharge and responsible to the firm. No evidence was collected by the complainant to make out that at the relevant time i.e. on 14.8.97 when accused firm was allegedly raided, both accused, namely Dalip Singh and Ravinder Singh had been the partners of said concern. In Criminal law, nothing can be left to supposition. The letter pad Ex. P-3 collected by accused on 14.8.97 at the time of alleged raid do not mention Dalip Singh and Ravinder Singh to be the partners of M/s Perry Mechanical Works (Regd.). There is absolutely no document on file, which could be referred to now that said two persons had been constitute M/s Perry Mechanical Works. The complainant by making a slight effort could have traced out the constitution of M/s Perry Mechanical works. With further effort, it could have been known as to who is Incharge of the accused firm and as to who was responsible to firm in conduction of its business. Mere mention that accused facing trial were Criminal Misc. No.36-MA of 2008 -4- **** partners of accused No. 1 is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon them. Both witnesses, namely Sh. Y.K. Sareen and Sh. G.M. Bakshi were asked the source of their information as to the status of the accused vis-a- vis the firm but they would not give any satisfactory answer./ Benefit of this fact must go to the accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me to take a view contrary to the view obtained by the learned Trial Court on the proven facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. Dismissed. September 16, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE