SUJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer for quashing of the charge framed by the, Special Judge, Sangrur, against Sujan Singh and Harbhajan Singh petitioners for an alleged contravention of the provisions of clause 13.1 (a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and quashing of the proceedings pending in that Court in that connection.

(2.) THE Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur, lodged First Information Report No. 154, dated June 14, 1983, at Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur, which has been reproduced in extenso in Para 1 of the petition. It is needless to reproduce the same again. The relevant allegations in the said report are, however, these Under clause 13.1(a) of the Control Order a person cannot offer or exhibit for sale fertilizer which is not of the prescribed standard, If a violation in this behalf is committed, both the manufacturer as well as the Fertilizer Dealer are responsible for the same. On March, 4, 1983, the Fertilizer inspector had drawn a sample of the fertilizer from the premises of a dealer i.e. Firm M/s. Sohan Singh Jaura of Sunam. The sample having been tested by the Laboratory at Ludhiana was found to be sub -standard. M/s. Sujan and Son Industries, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, of which the two petitioners are the partners, is said to be the manufacturer of the fertilizer sold by the dealer -Firm mentioned above. The two petitioners are, therefore, sought to be prosecuted for the alleged contravention of the Control Order.

(3.) THE point on which emphasis is laid by the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, were an offence is alleged to have been committed by a Company, only a person, who at the time of the contravention was incharge of and was responsible to the Company of the conduct of the business of the Company is liable to be proceeded against. The argument is that in the present case, neither in the First Information Report nor even in the charge framed by the trial Court, i.e., the learned Special Judge, Sangrur copy whereof has been annexed with the present petition, there is any allegation that the two petitioners were incharge of the business or the process of manufacture of the fertilizer in question. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No 613 -M of 1976 (Bhagwan Dass and others v. The State of Haryana). It was held in the said case that when an offence was alleged to have been committee by the Firm under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 the partners of the Firm could not be dragged into trial in the absence of an allegation or evidence to show that they were responsible for the management of the affairs of the Firm. In the said case, an earlier decision of the Delhi High Court (Manohar Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1978 Chandigarh Law Reporter (Delhi) 43 was noticed and followed. After considering the matter, the charge in that case was ordered to be quashed. The present case in fully covered by the dictum of the above decision.