NORTHERN MINERALS LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition has been filed against order dated 26.11.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Dholpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 695/1994 (776/1996) for taking cognizance against the accused petitioner and summoning them through warrant and for quashing the complaint filed by the Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection) Dholpur now pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dholpur.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition are that Agriculture officer (plant Protection) Dholpur filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Dholpur on 27.10.1994 about samples taken on 23.2.1993 from M/s. Mittal Beej and Tobacco Store, Sadar Bazar Bari District Dholpur. It was alleged in the complaint that the firm was selling insecticides Dhanuka M 45 (Mancozeb 75% WP). The sample was sent to Government Insecticides Laboratory Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan). On analyses the sample was found to be misbranded. In the complaint it was prayed that the accused persons may be dealt with as per Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The complaint was filed on 27.10.1994 and the process issued against the accused persons on 26.11.1994. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the process by way of cognizance was taken against the accused petitioners on 26.11.1994 while the expiry date of the substance i.e. Mancozeb 75% WP it's common name is Dhanuka M 45 is July, 1994. Thus the complaint was filed after expiry of sample, hence the cognizance taken or process issued on 26.11.94 or thereafter is only an abuse of process of the court. The learned Counsel argued that no cognizance can be taken in such situation where the complaint is filed after expiry of the shelf life itself. Reliance has been placed on Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,1995 20 RLR 299 State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd., 1999 SCC(Cri) 1404 and Hindustan Ciba Geigy v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 2 RLR 514. The learned Counsel further argued that in the complaint itself no clear allegation against the Managing Director/Directors/Principal Officer that they were/are responsible for the conduct of business about the disputed sample. Reliance has been placed on Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan, 1983 AIR(SC) 67, State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal,1998 2 RecCriR 608, KPG Nair v. Jindal Manthol India Ltd.,2000 CLR 778. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan,1995 2 RLR 298 Rallis India Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 2 667 B.L. Industries and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,1990 RCC 371; Smt. Harshilla Lodha and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,2002 3 RCC 1507. The learned Counsel further argued that the consent which has been taken from the authority concerned does not reveal that the consenting authority has applied its mind at the time of giving consent against the present accused petitioners for initiation of criminal proceedings. Reliance has been placed on SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, 2005 8 SCC 89 and Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan, 1983 AIR(SC) 67.

(3.) On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners and argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate rightly took cognizance against the accused petitioners after considering the material available on record.