Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Complaint Against ICICI Bank For Non-Payment Of Octroi On Import Of Gold Coins; Quashes Complaint Against Chanda Kocchar & Others
The Bank and its Officials approached the Bombay High Court seeking the quashing of the complaint in a Criminal Case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (PMC) and the summons issued to them.
The Bombay High Court has refused to quash complaint registered against the ICICI Bank for non-payment of octroi/toll to the Pune Municipal Corporation while importing gold bullions/coins. The High Court, however, quashed the case against the Bank Officials, including Chanda Kocchar, after finding no averment ascribing a specific role attributed to them.
The Bank and others had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the complaint in a Criminal Case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (PMC) and the summons issued to them.
The Single Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale held, “Although the statutory regime of the BPMC Act attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, prosecution against the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 cannot continue in the absence of any averment ascribing a specific role attributed to them. There is no such pleading in the entire complaint.”
Advocate Faisal Ali Sayyed represented the Petitioners while Advocate Abhijit P. Kulkarni represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Bank, Chief Executive Officer at the relevant time and other officials, such as the Managing Director, former Deputy Managing Director, Member of the Legal Department of the Bank and the Branch Manager of the Pune Bund Garden Branch, had approached the High Court. The Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) filed a Criminal Complaint against the Petitioners before the JMFC (PMC), Pune, under Sections 398 and 401 of the BPMC Act. According to the Corporation, the Petitioners had contravened the provisions of Section 81/1/A of the delegation order notified by the Corporation along with Sections 398, 149, 457, 466(1) and (2) of the BPMC Act. It was alleged that the Petitioner-Bank had imported into the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation, gold bullions/coins for distribution without paying the octroi/toll to the Corporation.
The gold bullions/coins were imported during the period April 1, 2006, to August 31, 2009. A notice was issued to the Bank calling upon it to pay the octroi duty. Despite receipt of the said notice, the Corporation learnt that the Petitioner imported gold bullions/coins for a period through July 3, 2009, up to July 31, 2009. The octroi payable was computed at Rs 1,27,58,409. However, at the time of importing the said goods, the octroi duty was not paid. Therefore, the Corporation issued another notice to the Petitioner-Bank, calling upon it to pay the amount of octroi plus the penalty as provided under Section 398 of the BPMC Act. Finally, the Corporation filed the complaint before the JMFC (PMC), Pune, and the JMFC issued a summons against the Petitioners. The petitioners sought the quashing of the summons.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that Section 401 of the BPMC Act creates a vicarious liability on a person who is a director, manager, secretary, agent or other officer or person concerned with the management of the company or partner of a firm in cases where the offence is alleged against a company. The Bench reaffirmed that when a company is the accused, its directors, managers, secretary, etc, can be roped in only if there is some incriminating role ascribed to them
On a perusal of the complaint, the Bench noted that the same did not demonstrate any role specifically attributed to any of the Petitioners.
The Bench thus ordered,“Consequently, the summons dated 20th November 2009 issued to the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 is also quashed. Complaint against the Petitioner No.1-Bank remains as it is.”
Cause Title: ICICI Bank Limited v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:53568)
Appearance
Petitioners: Advocates Faisal Ali Sayyed, M.K. Ambalal
Respondent: Advocates Abhijit P. Kulkarni, Sweta Shah, Abhishek Roy