G.S. NAGPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 13.5.1991 Shri Harpal Singh, Fertilizer Inspector, Fatehgarh Churian inspected the premises of M/s Tej Trading Company, Ajnala Road, Fatehgarh Churian Shri Rajak Mal, representative of the Company was present at that time. The Fertilizer Inspector after disclosing his identity informed him that he wanted to draw the sample of fertilizer and then he drew sample from four bags out of the stock of 205 bags of Kissan Brand Zink Sulphate 21% according to the rules. The fertilizer so collected from four bags which weighed about 1200 gms. was mixed thoroughly and was divided into three equal parts. The same. was then transferred into three separate neat, clean and dry polythene bags. One part of the sealed sample was sent to fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana for analysis and the other two parts of the sample were deposited in the Office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur. The sample on analysis was declared as non-standard by the Analytical Chemist Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. On receipt of the report, a complaint was filed against the proprietor of the firm M/s TeJ Trading Company and the present petitioner who is the Managing Director of the Manufacturing firm M/s Kissan Zinc (India) Pvt. Ltd., 281, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar, for violation of Clause 19(1)(a) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 read with Sections 7 and 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur exercising the powers of Special Judge.

(2.) SHRI G.S. Nagpal, Managing Director of M/s Kissan Zinc Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint, referred to above, and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the various grounds mentioned in the petition. It was also alleged that the complaint against the Managing Director of the Company alone was not maintainable when the Company had not been made an accused. To hold any person liable, it was necessary to aver that the person to be prosecuted was Incharge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business but in the complaint, there was no such averment against the petitioner. The complaint, therefore, could not proceed against him in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.