BRIJ MOHINDRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIJ Mohindra wife of Major Som Dutt and Rajinder Prashad Maggu son of Shri Ram Saran Maggu, moved the present petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Challenging the order of Special Judge, Ropar dated 19.1.1994 Annexure P-1, (sic) these two petitioners have also been summoned as accused in the case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act which was originally registered against Joginder Singh son of Rattan Chand of Mohali alone. It has been averred that the petitioners are partners of M/s Mohali Service Station, Mohali but the firm as such was never made an accused nor they were named as such. It has further been averred that the case was registered against Joginder Singh Salesman son of Nanak Chand of M/s. Mohali Service Station, Mohali at the instance of Shri Kuldip Singh the then A.F. S.O. Kharar and challan was presented in the Court on 10.5.1993 and charge was also framed against Joginder Singh and when a photo copy of the partnership deed dated 12.2.1988 came before the Court through (sic.) Kumar (PW-3) an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved and the trial Court wrongly summoned the present two petitioners as accused that the firm was never made or named as an accused; that there was no affirmation in the challan Annexure P-2 or even in the statement of PW-2, Kuldip Singh A.F.S.O., that the petitioners were incharge and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business; that the present two petitioners were neither jointly or severally liable; that the alleged offence took place on 11.11.1990 and the challan was presented on 10.5.1993 and the impugned cognizance was taken on 19.1.1994 qua the present two petitioners who could not be summoned because it was barred by limitation; that the investigation should have also been completed within six months because the case was triable in a summary way; that the impugned order dated 19.1.1994 is liable to be quashed.

(2.) IN reply it has been averred that the petitioners should have come forward in a revision and not under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that it was after perusal of the partnership deed dated 12.2.1988 which came to the notice of the Court that the present two petitioners were also summoned; that petitioner No. I has fifty per cent and petitioner No. 2, is also a partner; that Joginder Singh Salesman had been working with the consent of the present petitioners; that 1023 litres of High Speed Diesel was found in the premises and it was un-accounted for. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act is reproduced as under :