T. BANAMBAR PATRA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code"), has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 03.09.2015 and subsequent orders, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P, in case No. 282-3 of 17/2002, whereby after finding prima facie case against the present petitioner, the summons were issued to him.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that on 19.06.2002, around 3:00 p.m., the Food Inspector/complainant (hereinafter to be called as "the complainant"), Shimla, inspected the premises of M/s Toshali Resort, Shilon Bag, Shimla and found Sh. Joginder Boipoi conducting the business of the said restaurant. He was having about 5 Kg Dal Arhar in a plastic storage drum of having capacity of 20 Kg for preparation of food articles for sale to the general public. The complainant issued a notice to Sh. Joginder Boipoi regarding taking of samples of Arhar Dal for the purpose of analysis and purchased 600 gms of Dal on payment of Rs. 16.80/- as a sample for analysis. The purchased Dal was divided into three equal parts and put into three neat clean and dry glass bottles. The bottles were corked, lebeled and wrapped into a thick paper and paper slip bearing code and Sl. No. of LHA, District Shimla S-1/3553 was affixed on the top of each bottle. The signatures of the accused were taken on paper slip. Witnesses, Sh. Dhyan Singh and Sh. Ashok Kumar were present on the spot throughout the whole process of seizing the sample. Punchnama was prepared on the spot, which was signed by the witnesses, accused and by the complainant. The samples of Dal were sent to Public Analyst, Kandaghat and on analysis, the samples were found to be adulterated, vide report No. 159, dated 26.07.2002, which reads as under:

(3.) Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the summoning order issued by the learned Magistrate earlier was quashed by this Court and now in the same fashion the present summoning order has been issued, which is also required to be quashed, since the petitioner is Managing Director of the Company and no order can be passed against him, until and unless the Magistrate for the reasons comes to the conclusion that act is done under his supervision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought the attention of this Court to the orders passed by learned Magistrate from time to time, as well as the judgments (Annexures P-2 and P-4) passed by this Court. He has also cited the law settled in Mr. T.K. Sibal & others vs. Food Inspector & others, Cr. MMO No. 116 of 2012, decided on 21.05.2018 and argued that since this Court has already held in Cr. MMO No. 190 of 2011 that the summoning orders were passed without application of mind, the present petition may be allowed and impugned order dated 03.09.2015 alongwith subsequent orders may be quashed and set aside.