STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KASTURI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The State of Punjab questions legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No. 326 of 1998. A petition was filed under Section 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') questioning correctness of the order passed by learned Special Judge, Sangrur framing charges against the present respondents and one Prem Mohan Tiwari for alleged violation of the provisions contained in Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the 'Act').

(3.) Charge was framed by learned Special Judge by order dated 16-9-1997 holding that there was infringement of the provisions of Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947 (in short the 'Control Order') as amended under Section 3(1) of the Act. Samples of the vegetable oil product were drawn from the premises of M/s. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. on 29-4-1992 and on analysis the sample was found to contain 78% of solvent mustard oil as against the permitted limit of 20%. A challan under Section 173 of the Code was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Sangrur and the present respondents and aforesaid Prem Mohan Tiwari were arrayed as accused persons. While the accused Prem Mohan Tiwari was the Production Manager of the company, others were Directors of the company. Before the Special Judge, the accused persons opposed framing of charge on various grounds. Their main plank of the argument was that since Prem Mohan Tiwari was nominated by the company to be in charge and responsible to the company for conduct of the business no one else could be arrayed as accused. The plea did not find acceptance and the learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused persons in terms of S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The accused persons filed the Criminal Revision and Criminal Misc. No. 16907-M of 1998 was also filed to quash the challan under Section 173 of the Code which was taken up along with the Criminal Revision. As noted above, by the judgment which is impugned in the present appeal the High Court came to hold that it was only Prem Mohan Tiwari who was to face trial and charge so far as the others are concerned to be quashed. It was held that there was no definite material to show that they were in charge of running of business and/or responsible therefor.