Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE accused -petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings pending in the form of Criminal Case No. 30/2011 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Srimadhopur (District Sikar) for the offence under Section 18/54(e) read with Section 54 -D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') to his extend and also the warrant of arrest issued for his appearance before the trial Court.
(3.) BRIEF relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that FIR No. 12/2010 -2011 came to be registered at Abkari Circle, Srimadhopur against a registered company M/s. HSB Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others on the premise that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy by using fake and forged export permit and other relevant documents, 40,000 bulk litre of ENA (Extra Natural Alcohol) was exported by the company and, therefore, excise duty has been evaded. After investigation charge -sheet was filed against five accused persons and investigation was kept pending against eighteen persons including the petitioner. The petitioner has been made an accused on the premise that he is one of the Directors of the aforesaid company. Vide order dated 8.10.2013, the trial Court ordered to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner under Section 37 of the Police Act. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that although the petitioner is also one of the Directors of the company, but he is having only 0.75% shareholding in it and has attended only a few meetings of the Board of Directors of the company and petitioner was never entrusted with the control and management of the company and the petitioner is not responsible for the day to day affairs of the same and, therefore, he cannot be made an accused merely by the reason that he happens to be one of the Directors of the company. It was further submitted that it is well settled legal position that Director of a company cannot be vicariously held liable for the offence committed by the company more particularly in view of the fact that the Act does not provide for vicarious liability of the Directors of a company like many others special statutes wherein in certain circumstances Directors of the company are vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company. It was also submitted that unless there is clear and specific provision in the statute, a Director or other officer of the company cannot be made liable for the offence committed by the company. Apart from that, there must be clear allegation and specific role of the Director in the commission of the offence, if the prosecution wants to prosecute him as an accused, but in the present case neither such allegation has been made nor any specific role has been attributed to the petitioner.;