SANJAY PURI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sample of Suji was taken by the Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Shimla from respondent No.2 Rajeev Verma on 10.10.2000. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst gave his report on 16.11.2000 to the effect that the sample is adulterated. Thereafter, a complaint under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed in Court on 12.6.2001. On 20.9.2001 notice of accusation was put to the respondent No.2 and the case was fixed for evidence on 20.10.2001.

(2.) ON 20.10.2001 respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 20-A of the Act for impleading M/s.Gupta Agencies through its Proprietor Shri Bhola Nath Gupta as co-accused (respondent No.3) on the ground that he had purchased the Suji in a sealed polythene bag from said respondent No.3 and had kept it in the same condition. Thereafter, respondent No.3 was impleaded on 12.12.2001. Notice of accusation was put to respondent No.3 by the trial Court who also moved an application under Section 20-A for impleading the petitioner as co-accused in the case before the trial Court. In the said application it was alleged that the respondent No.3 had purchased the Suji in question from M/s.New Nav Bharat Flour Mills and it be impleaded as party through its Managing Director Shri Sanjay Puri. This application was allowed by the trial Court and M/s.New Nav Bharat Flour Mills was added as a party through the petitioner as its Managing Director. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for recalling the previous order. The main grounds taken were that M/s.New Nav Bharat Flour Mills has no separate identity. It is in fact a unit of M/s.PBI (India) Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It was further alleged that the petitioner had nothing to do with the day to day running of the Company and that one Sh.Vijay Kotwal, Production Manager of the Company had been duly nominated under Section 17 of the Act with the local Health authority at Jammu and if the Company is impleaded it should be prosecuted through its nominee. This application was contested by the other co-accused.

(3.) AS far as the jurisdiction of a Criminal Court to recall its own orders is concerned I need not go into this question in view of the decision which I propose to take on the merits of the case.