NOHAR CHAND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNIAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose; of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 878-M and 877-M of 1983. both petitions filed by the same petitioner under Section 482. Criminal P. C with a prayer for quashing of two separate charge-sheets (Copy Annexure P/2v framed against him by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Patti. vide impugned orders dated January 6. 1983 (Copy Annexure P/l ).

(2.) THE facts may be briefly noticed. Petitioner Nohar Chand is a Dartner of Messrs. Varindra Asro. Chemical (India) Ltd. a firm engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers at Ludhiana. As alleged in the two First Information Reports lodged separately and registered on August 27. 1980 the Fertilizer Inspector took samples of fertilizers on November 18. 1978 from the premises of Messrs. Joginder Pal and Bros, and Messrs. Dharam Nath Surinder Kumar. Fertilizer Dealers of Kham Karan. District Amritsar. It is stated that the samples did not conform to the prescribed specifications in certain respects and were hence substandard. Messrs. Varindra Agro-Chemical (India) Ltd. Ludhiana. of which the petitioner is a partner, are stated to be the manufacturers of the fertilizers. On the basis of the First Information Reports, the petitioner was summoned as a manufacturer of the fertilizers in two separate cases by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide two separate orders dated January 6. 1983.

(3.) AT the time of the arguments, it was noticed that the First Information Reports pertain not only to the petitioner as a manufacturer but also the dealers from whom the samples are alleged to have been taken. The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not therefore, press the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report as it is but made submissions regarding the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet framed against the petitioner. The first ground of attack is that there was no prim a facie evidence placed by the prosecution on the record to show that the alleged fertilizers of which the samples were taken from the premises of the dealers hart been manufactured by the petitioner's Firm Messrs. Varindra Agro-Chemical (India) Ltd. Ludhiana. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. I find that the contention is sound. It is a basic principle of law that before summoning a person to face a charge and more particularly when a charge-sheet is actually framed, the Court concerned must be equipped with at least prima facie material to show that the person who is sought to be arraved as an accused is guilty of the offence as alleged against him. In the impugned order, the learned trial Magistrate made an assumption right at the outset that the petitioner was the manufacturer of the fertilizers in question. The learned Magistrate did not advert to any evidence in this behalf. The order summoning the petitioner and framing the charge against him. thus, suffers from patent illegality and cannot, therefore, be sustained.