LAWS(P&H)-1985-8-73

P.K. BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On August 29, 1985
P.K. BANERJEE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN one of the prosecutions under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 13 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957, the petitioners P.K. Banerjee and T. Singh, Managers of National Fertilizers Limited, Nangal, were arraigned as accused. The prosecution case was that the other accused were found selling fertilizers manufactured by National Fertilizers Limited and the sample taken by the fertilizers Inspector from the godowns of the dealer, when analysed, was found to be sub-standard. The petitioners attempted to have the prosecution thwarted on the pleas of limitation. Their plea having been turned down has given rise to this petition.

(2.) THE sole contention of Mr. S.N. Narula, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that in view of Section 12AA of the Essential Commodities Act, all offences under the Act have to be tried only by a special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed. And when the trial can be summary as conceived of in the proviso to sub-clause (f) of clause (1) of section 12AA and the maximum imprisonment in that case not exceeding two years, the trial against the petitioners offended section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being beyond time. And further he states that the learned Magistrate was when confronted with the proposition, in error in extending the period of limitation.

(3.) MR . Narula attempted to scuttle the prosecution contending that the petitioners were public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, on ostensible plea that they were in the service or pay of a government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, and, therefore, without the sanction of the Central Government their prosecution was not possible. This plea, I am afraid, cannot be entertained here at this stage for, no such question was raised before the Court below. The question being a mixed question of law, fact and jurisdiction has, in the first instance, to be raised, if at all, before the trial Magistrate. The petitioners may, if so, advised, do so now.