OM PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having failed to obtain an order for dispensing with his personal attendance in Session Case No. 257/92, pending in the court of Session Judge, Jhalawar, the petitioner has approached to this Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. to get the same relief.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Fertilizer Inspector, Shri Jitendra Kumar inspected the godown of Kraya Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited, Bhawani Mandi on 6.9.88 and took sample of single super phosphate (Om Brand) fertilizer from a bag and the same was sent for chemical examination to the office of Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur. It appears that the sample was found of non-standard on analysis inasmuch as P2O5 was found 15.2% instead of 16% in the fertilizer. Thereafter, the Fertilizer Inspector made a report to the S.H.O., PS-Bhawani Mandi, District-Jhalawar on 22.12.88 alleging therein that Shri Vatsa Raj Jain the Vyasthapak of Kraya Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Bhawani Mandi had committed an offence u/s. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and case be registered against him. On receipt of this report, Crime No. 25/89 was registered u/s. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Shri Vatsa Raj Jain and the petitioner on or about Dec. 30, '91. The petitioner was impleaded as an accused in the capacity of his being Managing Director of Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd., Udaipur having its head office at Bombay. It is noteworthy that the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar where the same is pending for trial. The petitioner has also appeared in the court of the learned Sessions Judge and submitted bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as directed by the said court for his appearance in the case. He also moved an application to dispense with his personal attendance which was rejected by order dated January 20, 1993. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to dispense with the personal attendance in Sessions Case No. 257/92 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash and another) pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar u/s. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the presence of the petitioner during the trial is not at all necessary for deciding the case on merits. It was contended that the sample was not taken from the petitioner but he was impleaded as an accused in the capacity of his being Managing Director of M/s. Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd., Udaipur. Counsel argued that the petitioner resides at Bombay and he is awefully busy in his business affairs that it would cause great inconvenience and loss if he is compelled to attend each and every date of hearing. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner will appear before the trial court when the charge shall be read and explained to him to plead guilty or not. He further submits that the petitioner shall also appear when his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. shall be recorded and as and when he shall be called by the trial court. It was contended that the accusation against the petitioner is based on vicarious liability and the deficiency found in the sample is also not of serious nature.