JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY , J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the Supplementary Prosecution Report dated 06.08.2022 in C.P. Case No. 1461 of 2019 and also the order dated 08.12.2021 by which cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 47(a), 47A, 49, 52 and 55 of the Jharkhand Excise Act has been taken as the petitioners are the directors of M/s. A.B. Sugar Limited. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners being the directors of M/s. A.B. Sugars Limited were involved in forging documents and on the basis of the forged documents were involved in black marketing of E.N.A. (Extra Neutral Alcohol) by creating false documents and huge amount of spirit i.e. 25,000 litres of which were seized by the excise personnel; has been ordered by Mr. Pradip Terang of Assam though in fact, payment of the same was made by one K.G.N. Enterprises of which the bank account holder was Khurshid Anwar and New K.G.N. Enterprises, the bank account of which was in the name of Naajni Begum and both Khurshid Anwar and Naajni Begum were also involved in import and export of intoxicant in contravention of the provisions of the Jharkhand Excise Act and the rules, notifications and orders made thereunder. 4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not the directors of the company at the time of alleged incident/occurrence though earlier they were directors of the company but they ceased to be the directors of the company many years before the alleged occurrence. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. The petitioner no.3 has no concern with the said M/s. A.B. Sugars Limited neither in the capacity of director nor in any other capacity. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners ought not have been summoned as accused persons of the case. 5. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners ought not have been summoned as accused persons of the case. 5. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2019) 17 SCC 193 in which case, the offences involved were under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. C.B.I. , reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609 , an individual either as a Director or a Managing Director or Chairman of the company can be made an accused, along with the company, only if there is sufficient material to prove his active role coupled with the criminal intent. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners also relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court, in the case of S.K. Kishorpuria & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar , reported in 1998 SCC Online Pat 512 wherein, in the facts of that case, where the only allegation against the petitioners before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case diary was that though the Superintendent of Excise requested to transfer his employee Maharana Pratap Singh but he did not do so, the Hon’ble Patna High Court held that the prosecution of the petitioners before it was wholly unwarranted. Therefore, the order of cognizance was quashed. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the order taking cognizance is thoroughly mechanical and four persons excluding the petitioners, against whom cognizance has been taken have died before filing of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that Section 47A of the Jharkhand Excise Act, 2000 which reads as under:- “47A. Commission of offence by companies. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that Section 47A of the Jharkhand Excise Act, 2000 which reads as under:- “47A. Commission of offence by companies. — (1) If the person committing an offence under this Act is a company, the company as well as every person in charge of and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of the offence, shall be deemed to be guilty of offence, and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Provided that where a company has different establishment or branches or different units in any establishment or branch, the concerned Chief Executive and the person in charge of such establishment, branch, unit nominated by the company as responsible for the conduct of business shall be liable for contravention in respect of such establishment, branch or unit: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or that the commission of the offence is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (3) This Section shall not apply to such companies where the majority shareholding is held by Central or any State Government or such companies as the Board may exempt. (3) This Section shall not apply to such companies where the majority shareholding is held by Central or any State Government or such companies as the Board may exempt. Explanation.— For the purpose of this Section - “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and “director”, in relation to the firm, means a partner in the firm.” (Emphasis supplied) provides that when the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any negligence on the part of the Director, Manager, Secretary, Agent, Officer or person concerned in the management of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary, Agent, Officer or persons concerned shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. 7. It is next submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the undisputed fact remains that before filing of the Supplementary Prosecution Report, notice was issued by the Excise Inspector- cum-Investigating Officer of the Excise Department. There is no whisper in the criminal miscellaneous petition as to why the petitioners did not respond to the notice issued by the Excise Inspector before submission of the Supplementary Prosecution Report. It is next submitted that in the Supplementary Prosecution Report which was submitted after a special investigating team consisting of four persons, two of whom being Excise Superintendent of different districts in the State of Jharkhand, in which, the complicity of the petitioners was found in resorting to import, export and transportation of huge amount of intoxicants in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is then submitted that the plea of the petitioners, that the petitioners were not the directors of A.B. Sugars Limited on the relevant day, is a defence which the petitioners can take during the trial of the case. It is then submitted that the plea of the petitioners, that the petitioners were not the directors of A.B. Sugars Limited on the relevant day, is a defence which the petitioners can take during the trial of the case. It is next submitted that it is a plea they could have taken before the Excise Inspector-Complainant, in response to the notice issued to them; but having not done so, certainly it is not open for this Court to enter into a disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioners were the directors of said A.B. Sugars Limited on the relevant date or not; in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the contention of the petitioners that some of the accused persons of the case died before institution of the case has got nothing to do with the prosecution of the petitioners as the prosecution of the petitioners cannot be challenged for death of some co-accused persons during or before institution of the case. It is next submitted that there is direct and serious allegation against the petitioners of having committed the offences punishable under Section 47(a) of the Jharkhand Excise Act besides other offences as alleged. Hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the entire criminal prosecution including the Supplementary Prosecution Report dated 06.08.2022 in C.P. Case No. 1461 of 2019 and also the order dated 08.12.2021 by which cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 47(a), 47A, 49, 52 and 55 of the Jharkhand Excise Act has been taken as the petitioners are the directors of M/s. A.B. Sugar Limited, ought not to be quashed and this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the power vested upon a High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly. In the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that High Court could not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or not; as that would be the function of the trial court. In the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that High Court could not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or not; as that would be the function of the trial court. In the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In the case of Shiji @ Pappu & Others vs. Radhika & Another reported in AIR 2012 SC 499 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that plenitude of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by itself makes its obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of power itself demands that its exercise is sparing made and only in cases where High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, is of the clear view that continuance of a prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners were issued notice by the Complainant-Excise Inspector before submission of the Supplementary Prosecution Report. There is no plausible reason, as to why the petitioners did not respond to such notice and intimate their defence to the Excise Inspector. The contention of the petitioners that they are not the directors of the company concerned is a defence which they can take during the trial and which is certainly a disputed question of fact; which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in the absence of evidence, as that is the job of the trial court. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer made by the petitioner is to be allowed in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.