STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NOHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The allegation against the respondent was that he manufactured sub-standard fertiliser and through his marketing agents M/s. Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapurthala marketed the same. The offence was disclosed when the Fertiliser Inspector took a sample of the sub-standard fertiliser from the marketing agents at Kapurthala. It is an admitted position that the respondent who is the manufacturer carries on his business of manufacturing fertilisers at Ludhiana. The question posed is : whether the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala where the marketing agents of sub-standard fertiliser manufactured by the respondent marketed the same, will have jurisdiction to try the respondent, the manufacturer of the sub-standard fertiliser along with the marketing agents.

(3.) The learned single Judge of the High Court following the decision in Satinder Singh's case held that the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser cannot be tried where the commodity was being marketed. The view taken by the High Court with respect is wholly untenable in law. But before examining the legal position subsequent development of law in the same High Court on this very point may be noticed.