New Delhi: Criminal law should not move without adequate facts investigations in mere suspicion, the Supreme Court has said while canceling a criminal case against the company’s director.
Judge Hospital RSDY and Sanjiv Khanna said the obligations of representatives were interested when violations were carried out with approval, keteknekan, or caused by neglect on the director, manager, secretary, or other company officers.
In law, Vicarious obligation is the responsibility assigned to the employer, which is produced from an employee’s actions.
“Criminal law should not be transferred as an ordinary thing or without an adequate facts investigation and need to mere suspicion, or when legal violations are doubtful.” It is the duty and responsibility of public officers to continue responsibly and make sure the fact is right and correct.
Legal execution without acquaintances that are in accordance with the legal provisions and comprehensive taste Their application can lead to innocent people demanded, “said the apex court.
On the problem of Summon, Bench said it was a court duty not to issue calls in mechanics and routine ways.” Is a task Judge to apply his mind to see whether based on the accusations made and evidence, the case of the prime facie to take the awareness and summons of the defendant was made or not, “the bench said to assess the October 29 said the APEX court heard the appeal submitted by Dayle De Souza who challenged the command of Madhya Pradesh, who rejected his request that was seeking the arrangement of cases of it.
Rights, and for the reasons mentioned above, we will do it, let the current appeal and cancel the calling command and trial against the Petitioner at this time.
The Petitioner, Director of Writer Safeguard Pvt.
Ltd, has signed UN agreement Tuk Revicing and Charging Automatic Teller Machines “, with NCR Corporation India Private Ltd.
Corporation NCR previously signed an agreement with Bank Negara India for the maintenance and maintenance of ATM of the US states.
On February 19, 2014, labor enforcement officers (center) examined SBI ATMs and then issued a notification that accused non-compliance with the provisions of the minimum wage law, 1948, and the minimum wage rules (center), 1950 at the ATM.
After more than four months, work enforcement officers (center), told the applicant and Vinod Singh (Director MP Unit) that they were asked to appear in court on August 14, 2014.
On August 14, 2014, the employment enforcement of officers (center) filed a criminal complaint Before the Justice Judge Court, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, under the part of 22A of the laws that took awareness of violations and issued a warrant that was responded to against the Applicant and Vinod Singh.
The applicant then moved the High Court because it canceled the complaint, which refused his request.