JUDGMENT 1. THIS revisional petition is directed against the order no. 18 dated 3uly 30, 1983 passed by metropolitan Magistrate 8th Court, "calcutta in case no. C/1631 of 1982 under section 11 (1) read with section 12 of the Export (Quality control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said act). 2. THE facts are briefly as follows : -The accused opposite party submitted the application for obtaining a certificate of inspection for 95 bales hessian cloth to the sub-office at Howrah of the Export Inspection Agency, Calcutta on november, 6, 1980 The accused opposite party has declared the technical requirements including specifications stipulated in the export contract of the materials of Hessian Cloth 45"-12 OZ/40 plain 11x12 (cropped and calendered) 1000 metres/bales against serial no. 2 of the above intimation. On basis of the said application giving particulars the agency had issued the export worthy certificate on November 7, 1980 under section 7 of the said Act, on the Mill declaration in the aforesaid application for certificate to the effect that the consignment has been manufactured/proposed to satisfy the conditions relating to quality control under the said Act. But on a scrutiny of the Mill quality control record it had been ultimately discovered by the Agency that the Mill did not ensure conformity of the materials under export which were requirement of the recognised specification in as much as the specification and tolerances given i. the export contract for and construction were ignored. So it is alleged that the certificate of inspection against the said consignment had been obtained by the opposite party Bally Jute Mill by wrongful suppression of the contractual requirement. The accused opposite party has therefore, obtained the inspection certificate for the said consignment fraudulently and thus committed an offence within the meaning of section 11 (a)read with section 12 of the Export (Quality, Control and Inspection)Act, 1963. The accused opposite party has therefore, obtained the inspection certificate for the said consignment fraudulently and thus committed an offence within the meaning of section 11 (a)read with section 12 of the Export (Quality, Control and Inspection)Act, 1963. The Government of India by notification issued under section 14 of the said Act has authorised Sri D. C. Majumdar, Director, Export inspection Council, New Delhi to give and/or accord his sanction under section 14 of the said Act for initiating proceedings against the accused opposite party and Sri Majumdar being satisfied on the material placed before him gave his consent to initiate this criminal proceeding against the accused opposite party and authorised the present complainant petitioner to file complaint before the appropriate court of law and the complainant petitioner thereafter filed a petition of complaint on May 6, 1982 before the (Id. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who transferred the case to the 5th Court Calcutta for disposal. After the service of the summons the accused opposite party entered appearance through its lawyer and made an application for dropping the said proceeding on the ground that under section 12 of the said Act whenever an offence is committed by a company all person in charge and/or responsible to the company at the relevant period have to be prosecuted. But in the present proceeding the company alone is being prosecuted and the company being a juristic person had no corporal existence and as such the company cannot have a mind for less a guilty mind or mere rea like an ordinary accused having physical existence. It is further submitted that legislature has prescribed a mandate under section 12 of the said Act for prosecuting every officer in charge and/or responsible to the company at the relevant period along with the company, if any violation is committed. But in the present case the present complainant has failed to prosecute any such officer as an accused. Consequently the proceeding is bad in law and should be quashed. The Learned Magistrate accepted the contention that company having no physical mind cannot have mens rea. So by the order dated 3uly 30, 1983 he allowed the application of the accused opposite party, dropped the proceeding and discharged the accused. 3. BEING aggrieved by the order of the Learned Magistrate, the present revision petition has been tiled. 4. The Learned Magistrate accepted the contention that company having no physical mind cannot have mens rea. So by the order dated 3uly 30, 1983 he allowed the application of the accused opposite party, dropped the proceeding and discharged the accused. 3. BEING aggrieved by the order of the Learned Magistrate, the present revision petition has been tiled. 4. IT is contended that the Learned Magistrate illegally dropped the proceeding and discharged the accused and that the proceeding against the company under section 11 (a) of the Export (Quality, control and Inspection) Act, 1963 is quite maintainable in view of the provision of section, 12 of the said Act. The opposite party opposes the revision petition before me. If is submitted chat the Learned Magistrate was quite justified in dropping the proceeding and in discharging the accused. It is firstly-contended that the alleged offence required mens rea and therefore a limited company which cannot have any mind cannot commit an offence which requires mens rea to be proved for prosecuting the accused. For such offence the person or persons in charge of the company and was/were responsible for the commission of the offence could be prosecuted and the instant proceeding has been rightly dropped by the Learned Magistrate. The second contention of the opposite party is that in view of the section 7 (5)-of the Export (Quality, Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 no criminal proceeding can be initiated because the decision of the agency issuing the certificate under section 7 of the Act shall be final and can not questioned in any court of law. It is also submitted that only the Central Government may at any time for call for examination of the record for the purpose of enquiring as to legality, propriety of such decision and may pass such order thereon as it may deem fit. The Central Government has not taken any steps to call for examination of the record of the proceeding in this case as yet. Therefore no criminal prosecution could be instituted against the accused opposite party and such proceeding cannot but be held to be premature. The Central Government has not taken any steps to call for examination of the record of the proceeding in this case as yet. Therefore no criminal prosecution could be instituted against the accused opposite party and such proceeding cannot but be held to be premature. The third contention of the accused opposite party is that this criminal proceeding which is not a very serious offence is pending trial court since 1982 and should not be allowed to continue any further because 5 years have already passed from the date of filing of the complaint. 5. THE first point for decision in this revision case is whether the opposite party which is. a public limited company can be prosecuted for committing of the offence under section ii (a) Export (Quality control and Inspection) Act, 1963 on the allegation that the company obtained certificate from the export agency under section 7 of the act fraudulently. Mr. Dilip Dutt appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged that the alleged offence having been committed by the opposite party a limited company prosecution is quite maintainable against it in view of the provisions of section 12 of the Act. It is submitted that when Act has specifically authorised the prosecution of the company under section 12 of the Act, it cannot be urged that the company cannot be prosecuted under the Act. It is also contended that the alleged offence is not an offence under the Indian Penal code and is a special offence created by the Statute which provides specifically that the company can be prosecuted for the offences committed under the Act. It is also contended even though the Supreme court held that the offence committed under section 7 of the Essential commodity Act, 1959 requires, mens rea the Supreme Court have not in any decision held that the company cannot, be prosecuted for the offence committed under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. because in the Essential Commodities Act, there is also a similar provision like 12 of the Export (Quality, Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 authorising the prosecution against a company. Mr. Dilip Dutt has also referred to me that the decision reported in 1944 (j) Ail england Reporter Page 119, Director of Public Prosecution v. Kent constructors in which Kings Bench Division of England have held that in respect of offences under the Defence General Regulations no. Mr. Dilip Dutt has also referred to me that the decision reported in 1944 (j) Ail england Reporter Page 119, Director of Public Prosecution v. Kent constructors in which Kings Bench Division of England have held that in respect of offences under the Defence General Regulations no. S2 (l) and 82 (2) which required knowledge and information of the graveness of the offence a company can be prosecuted and even though the company did not have any physical mind and the knowledge and of its servants interest were to be imputed to the body corporate. Mr, Dutt argues that the principle embodied in the above English decision has been incorporated in the various statutes in India including the present Act by making provision like section if of the said Act and in that view it can be held that even though the opposite party did not have any physical mind for the alleged offence committed by the opposite party fraudulent intention has to be imputed to the opposite party and it can be prosecuted. It is also urged that it is not necessary that any officer responsible for the commission of the offence has to be compulsorily prosecuted and if such officer is not prosecuted the prosecution against the company cannot be held to be infirm or illegal. On behalf of the opposite party the decision of Kusum Products ltd. v. S. K. Gupta T. T. O. 1980 (II) CHN 326 has been cited. There the division bench of a company under the Income Tax Act which requires criminal intention is illegal. I have carefully perused the said decision. In the Income Tax Act there is no specific provision like section 12 of the present Act. On the country even though the supreme Court has held in AIR 1966 Supreme Court Page 43 that offence under section 7 of Essential Commodity Act requires mens rea the prosecution of the company in view of section 10 of the said act has been upheld in various decisions of the Supreme Court. In parekh's case ( AIR 1971 SC 447 ) Supreme Court held the view that when a company was dealer and was alleged to have contravened the order promulgated under Essential Commodities Act the company had to be impleaded along with the directors who are vicariously liable. In parekh's case ( AIR 1971 SC 447 ) Supreme Court held the view that when a company was dealer and was alleged to have contravened the order promulgated under Essential Commodities Act the company had to be impleaded along with the directors who are vicariously liable. But in AIR 1984 Supreme Court page 1824 (Sheoratan v. State of m. P.,) the Supreme Court has modified its previous stand and has held that the directors alone can be prosecuted when the company being the dealer committed the offence but there must be proof that the company contravened the order and the Directors were responsible for such contravention vicariously on carefully considering all these decisions I am convinced that in view of section 12 of the Act the company can be prosecuted for the offence u/s 11 (a) of the Act and the fraudulent intention of the officers of the company for the commission of the offence has to be imputed to the opposite party company. 6. THE Ld. Advocate for the opposite party has also urged that for the subsequent offence committed u/s 11 of the Act there is the provision for compulsory imprisonment and consequently the opposite party cannot be prosecuted for the offence u/s. 11 (a) of the Act. In this case there is no allegation that the company has committed the offence for the second time. So in this case no question of compulsory imprisonment arises. In view of the above discussions I am of the view that the ld. Magistrate was not at all justified in holding that the opposite party company cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offence under section 11 (a) of the Act as it requires mens; rea. The second contention of the opposite party that prosecution is premature is not at all acceptable. The declaration in section 7 (5) of the Act that decision of the authority granting or refusing the certificate or of the appellate authority shall be final and shall not be questioned in, any court of law except that the Central Government under sub section (6) of section 7 can review such order has nothing to do with criminal proceeding under section 11 (a) of the Act because as soon as the accused fraudulently obtains a certificate under section 7 he renders himself liable for criminal prosecution at once. So this contention fails. 7. So this contention fails. 7. THE third contention of the opposite party is that the offence being not a grave one prosecution] should not be allowed continue for these long five years and the order of discharge should not be disturbed by this court. I am of the view that the complaint was lodged in 1982. The Ld. Magistrate discharged the accused sometime in 1983 and revision by the complainant was filed promptly. Only because this court took about four years to dispose of this revision petition, I am unable to hold that the order of discharge against opposite party accused should be allowed be stand only on that ground. In the result I allow this revision and set aside the order of the Ld. Magistrate and direct him to proceed with the trial of the accused opposite party in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The rule be made absolute. Let the records be sent down at once. Rule made absolute.