SAMIR NAYAR Vs. STATE PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been moved by Samir Nayar seeking quashing of criminal complaint bearing No. 423 dated 8-3-2007 (Annexure P1) pending in the Court of Shri K. S. Cheema, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, the summoning order of even date passed in the complaint as well as all the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No. 2 has lodged complaint, Annexure P1 under S.41-43 read with S.62 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, containing the allegations that after conducting inquiry, the officers of the Legal Metrology Department, Patiala and Jalandar gave reports to Controller, Legal Metrology Punjab vide letter No. 135 dated 22-3-2004. On the basis of the inquiry, Inspector Legal Metrology, Ludhiana-III, booked a case on 1-4-2004. As per alleged inquiry, it was found that the petitioner and his coaccused Navneet Nayar of M/s. Freemans Measures Limited, had supplied/distributed and delivered standard tape measures to various States in the Interstate transaction as per records given by them without verification and stamping by the Weights and Measures Department. On receiving the complaint, Annexure P1, the above mentioned Court passed order dated 8-3-2007, Annexure P2 and issued notice without application of mind. A bare perusal of S.62 of the Act reveals that the punishment prescribed therein is fine, which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- and for the second or subsequent offence, the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and also with fine. The alleged offences which the petitioner has otherwise never committed is the first offence meaning thereby that the punishment prescribed for the same is fine. As per the mandatory provisions of S.468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the maximum period within which Annexure. P1 should have been filed, was six months from the date of commission of the alleged offence, which as per the allegations made in the complaint was committed in the year 2004. In this view of the matter, Annexure P1 is liable to be quashed straightway on the ground of being barred by limitation. As per the provisions of S.64 of the Act, which is in pari materia with that of S.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the event of an offence under the Act having been committed by a Company, every person who at the time when the offence was committed, was incharge and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company as well as the Company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. In the present case, there is not even an iota of allegations in the complaint that the petitioner was incharge and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances mentioned above as well as legal aspect of the matter, the complaint Annexure P1, the summoning order Annexure P2 as well as the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof being patently illegal and gross abuse of the process of the Court, may be quashed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State of Punjab besides going through the record with due care and circumspection.