B. K. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) BY these Company Applications the Petitioner who is the Deputy Chief Officer Department of Non-Banking Companies of the Reserve Bank of India has take out Judges Summons for obtaining leave under sec. 446 of the Companies Act 1956 for launching prosecu- tions against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in all these applications for the alleged violation of clause 4 of the Miscellaneous Non-Banking Compa- nies (Reserve Bank) Directions 1973 and thereby having committed offence under sec. 58-B (1) read with sec. 58-C (i) of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 ( 2 ) A question arose whether such a permission is necessary in view of the decision of this Court (Coram: B. K. Mehta J.) in Company Application No. 207 of 1980 where in the context of criminal prosecution under the provident Fund Act read with the Provident Fund Scheme the erstwhile Directors and other Officers of the Manekchowk and Ahmedabad Mfg. Company (in liquidation) were prosecuted. In that context following the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. The State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 575 and Inderjit C. Parikh v. B. K. Bhatt and Anr. AIR 1974 of 1183 it was held that no such permission was necessary since admittedly the Company was not joined as a party accused. ( 3 ) SO far as the present case in concerned the Company is sought to be prosecuted for the alleged violation of the Miscellaneous Non- Banking Companies (Reserve Bank) Directions 1973 under sec. 58-C (1 ). of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 Sec. 58-B provides for penalties. Sec. 58-B (5) inter alia provides that if any person receives any deposit in contravention of any direction given or order made under Chapter IIIB he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Sec. 58-C provides for a deeming fiction when offence is said to have been committed by a company and its directors. Sub-sec. (1) of see. 58-C reads as under:" (1) Where a person committing a contravention or default referred to in sec. 58b is a company every person who at the time. Sec. 58-C provides for a deeming fiction when offence is said to have been committed by a company and its directors. Sub-sec. (1) of see. 58-C reads as under:" (1) Where a person committing a contravention or default referred to in sec. 58b is a company every person who at the time. the contravention of default was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention or default and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. PROVIDED that nothing contained in :his sub-sec shall render any such person liable to punishment if he proves that the contravention or default was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention or default". ( 4 ) ON plain reading of sec. 58c (1) therefore if any Director or Officer of such Company committing the offence under sec. 58b (5) is to be prosecuted the condition precedent which is required to be satisfied is that the alleged contravention or default was by the Company of which such persons were Directors or officers. Unless therefore the Company has violated the restrictions neither the officers nor the Directors in charge of the management of the Company nor the company can be held guilty by operation of the deeming fiction (vide: State of Madras v. C. V. Parekh and Another AIR 1971 SC 447 and State of Gujarat v. Rajnikant M. Thakkar. Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 1976 decided by D. P. Desai and N. H. Bhatt JJ. (Per: Bhatt J) on 6-9-1976 ). The decision of this Court therefore in Company Application No. 207 of 1980 dated 8/10/1980 (Per: B. K. Mehta J.) cannot be pressed in service on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. ( 5 ) A further question arose whether the Company could prosecuted under sec. 58c (1) since the corporal punishment of imprisonment is a mandatory part of the sentence. The larger question is not relevant for the time being and therefore I need not go into the same. ( 5 ) A further question arose whether the Company could prosecuted under sec. 58c (1) since the corporal punishment of imprisonment is a mandatory part of the sentence. The larger question is not relevant for the time being and therefore I need not go into the same. However the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner had invited my attention to the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Municipal corporation of Delhi v J. B. Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. (1975) 2 Criminal Law Journal 1148 where the Full Bench has in context of the relevant provisions contained in sec. 17 of the provision of Food Adulteration Act 1954 which is in pari materia to the one contained in sec. 58c (1) of the Reserve Bank of India 1934 ruled that on the recogni- sed principles of interpretation of statute even if the corporal punishment of imprisonment is a mandatory part of the sentence the Court can in order to effectively carry out the statutory sentence impose the sentence of fine only in cases where the offence is committed by the Company. However as stated above the larger question is not relevant for the present purpose. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter having regard to what is stated in the affidavit in support of the summons the contents of which are not con- troverted by any of the respondents I am of the opinion that leave under sec. 446 of the Companies Act should be granted to the petitioner to continue the prosecution as launched by the petitioner against the directors and the company. Summons is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly. .