S.K. MAKAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant miscellaneous has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dt. 21.02.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 724/1992 (State vs. Vinod Sharma & Ors.) directing framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences under Secs. 18a(i) read with Sections 27(b)(i) and 18(c) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, "the Act of 1949"), as affirmed in the Revision petition No. 68/2009, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his order dt. 10.04.2009. The petitioners herein are the Directors of a company namely M/s. Gujrat Enjkt Limited, Kalol. An injection Isomizotes manufactured by the company was seized from its vendor at Sri Ganganagar and thereafter the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint against various persons including the petitioners for the offences mentioned above. The learned trial Judge proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners, as mentioned above and the revision petition filed by the petitioners, challenging the order framing charges, has also been rejected. Thus, the instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred before this Court seeking quashing of the charges and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners in this case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the admitted case of the prosecution, by way of document EX. P/18, which is the List of Directors of the manufacturing company M/s. Gujrat Enjkt Limited, Kalol, that petitioner No. 1 S.K. Makand was the Director of the company in the capacity of Insurance Consultant and the petitioner No. 2 H.H. Makand was the Director of the company in the capacity of Educational Consultant. Thus, it is submitted that by the very fact that the designation of the petitioners in the Board of Directors of the company is for a limited purpose, the prosecution of the petitioners in this case is absolutely unwarranted. Learned counsel, pointing out the complaint filed in this case, submits that one Yogesh Makand has been mentioned as the Managing Director of the company and the person responsible for the day to day affairs thereof. He, therefore, submits that the prosecution of the petitioners in this case is absolutely unwarranted and that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted.

(3.) HAVING heard the arguments advanced at the bar and upon going through the material available on record, it is manifest that in the complaint, the accused at serial No. 10, namely Yogesh Makand, has been mentioned to be the Chirman cum Managing Director of the company. So far as the petitioners are concerned, as per the document EX. P/18, the petitioners No. 1 S.K. Makand is projected as the Director cum Insurance Consultant and the petitioner No. 2 H.H. Makand is projected as the Director cum Educational Consultant of the company.