UMESH SHARMA Vs. S G BHAKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these writ petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, original accused Nos. 3 and 4 challenge the orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad on 14-6-2002, in Criminal Case No. 80348/1997 (earlier Criminal Case No. 11 of 1995) and Regular Criminal Case No. 179 of 1996 (earlier Criminal Case No. 675 of 1984) below Exhibits 33 and 34 in the first matter and Exhibits 23 and 24 in the second matter. By orders below Exhibits 33 and 23, in the respective criminal cases, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the applications of petitioners/accused Nos. 3 and 4 requesting to recall the process issued against them on the ground that they were not in-charge of the business of the company, nor responsible to the company for conduct of the business. Since it was admitted position that accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the Managing Director and Director respectively of M/s. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Limited (for short, "the company") (original accused No. 5), the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that they were responsible for the act of the company, having control over it, although they reside out of station. So far as applications Exhibits 34 and 24 are concerned, the petitioners had requested for exemption from personal appearance till decision of Exhibits 23 and 24. Those were rejected in view of disposal of applications Exhibits 33 and 23. Even when the matter is now being argued before this Court, since exemption was sought from personal appearance till decision of applications for recall of the process, applications Exhibits 34 and 24, with decision of applications Exhibits 33 and 23 on 14-6-2002; have become infructuous, so also the challenge to rejection of applications Exhibits 34 and 24.

(2.) BOTH the matters are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, in view of the fact that identical questions of fact and law arise in both the matters and only variance is regarding date of collection of samples of drugs manufactured by the accused No. 5 company.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties. Rule. By mutual consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.