STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUKHDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by State of Punjab against the impugned order dated 5.10.1988 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Ludhiana by which all the respondents have been discharged.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 4 are partners of M/s Bharat Fertilizers Manufacturing Company, Kotkapura and are dealing in the manufacturing of fertilizer. The said firm is manufacturing zinc sulphate fertilizer and is supplying to various dealers in the State for sale. The Fertilizer Inspector took sample from Parshotam Lal Gupta on 18.6.1997 of zinc sulphate Bharat brand manufactured by M/s Bharat Fertilizers Manufacturing Company, Kotkapura and the other sample was secured on 23.6.1987 of zinc sulphate from Varinder Kumar of M/s Rikhi Ram Madan Gopal manufactured by the said company. These samples were secured in accordance with the schedule of fertilizer control order and were sealed in the presence of one partner for which seizure memo were prepared, which were duly signed by the dealer. The samples were sent to Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana for analysis. On analysis done by Analytical Chemist Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, the same were found to be non-standard. Thereafter, a case was registered on the complaint lodged by the Chief Agricultural Officer. It was alleged that M/s Bharat Fertilizer Manufacturing Company, Kotkapura has violated the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 and therefore, should be punished under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2A.The learned Special Judge discharged Satpal, Chaman Lal and Gurnam Singh alias Gurcharan Singh on the ground that they were sleeping partners of the firm and cannot be held liable for any lapse of the firm. The learned Special Judge has also taken into consideration Clauses 8 and 9 of the Partnership deed placed before him which shows that Satpal, Gurnam Singh and Chaman Lal are only the sleeping partners of the firm. It has been further observed by the learned Special Judge that according to Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, in case of a company every person, who at the time of the contravention was committed was incharge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company can be proceeded and punished accordingly. The learned Special Judge thus discharged the above said three persons (para 4 of the impugned judgment refers). So far as Sukdev Raj respondent is concerned, the observation of the learned Special Judge was that even against him, no charge can be framed because the fertilizers sample was found to be non-standard and can be sold as per Clause 23 of the fertilizers and not sub-standard Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The Court further observed that there is no allegation by the prosecution that Clause 23 of the Act has not been complied with by Sukhdev Raj respondent and as such, no charge can be framed against him (para 5 of the impugned judgment refers).

(3.) MR . Ghai in support of his argument has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Sham Sunder and others v. State of Haryana, 1989(2) RCR 494.