RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GIAN Chand and Ramesh Kumar respondents are carrying on the business of sale of D.A.P. (urea). A sample of urea taken from a machine stitched of urea bag from their business and on analysis was found to be adulterated. They are being prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in the Court of Special Judge, Sangrur. They moved an application for summoning the manufacturers as also dealers of the brand of urea found adulterated. The Special Judge vide order dated September 8, 1984, has summoned the petitioner on the ground that they are stockists of the urea which Gian Chand and Ramesh Kumar had purchased from them. The petitioners have assailed the order dated September 8,1984, in the present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners were not named in the complaint which was filed by the competent authority against Gian Chand and Ramesh Kumar respondents. The Special Judge could not summon the petitioners as accused irrespective that they were the stockists of the urea which was sold to Gian Chand and Ramesh Kumar and was found to be adulterated. Reliance has been placed on Bhagwati Saran and another v. The State of U.P., AIR 1961 S.C. 928. The contention is without merit. The ratio of Bhagwati Saran's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the instant case. The trial of Gian Chand and Ramesh Kumar having started on the complaint of the competent authority, the trial Court is competent to summon the petitioner on the ground that they were the stockists of the commodity. Dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed in limine.