Case: Nalin Thakor &amp; Others Vs. State of Gujarat &amp; Others

1. The two learned Judges of this Court having found conflict between the two decisions of this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (1983 (1) SCC 1 ) and State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal (1998 (5) SCC 343 ) taking one view and U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery (1987 (3) SCC 684 ) taking another view, opined that the matter requires to be heard by a Bench of three learned Judges. By this way, the matter, therefore, has come before us.

Reasoning:
We further find that the issue of summons to the appellants was also without an application of mind as nothing was said in the complaint or in the statement recorded by the Vth Joint Judicial Magistrate before issue of summons that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or was attributable to any negligence on the part of the appellants.of S.47 requires that where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. There being no allegation as regards the requirement ofof S.47, the Vth Joint Judicial Magistrate committed an error in issuing summons to the appellants herein.