Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 777 (PNJ)

Diwan Chand v. State of Punjab

2003-05-21

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of challan in FIR No. 97, dated 20.8.1997 registered at Police Station Rampura, Distt. Bathinda, Annexure P-1, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the Fertilizer Inspector drew the sample of Dia-ammonium fertilizer 18 : 46 from the premises of a dealer firm namely M/s Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation, Rampura on 22.9.1994. The sample was sent to the Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Faridkot for analysing and it was found that it did not conform to the prescribed standards. Accordingly a written complaint was filed by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda before the S.S.P. for registration of an F.I.R. against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered the present F.I.R. against the petitioner as he was an employee of the manufacturing company. The perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the petitioner was the Chief Manager Production, IFFCO, Kandla (Gujarat) and had been declared as a responsible person for quality of fertilizers under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. 3. Shri Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioner was working as Chief Manager Production of the Fertilizer plant and has been declared responsible for quality of the fertilizer. He has contended that no duties of the petitioner have been spelled out in the complaint nor it has been mentioned that the petitioner was incharge and in overall control of the production by the manufacturing company. It is further contended by Shri Goyal that the company has not been arrayed as an accused. Learned counsel has relied on the decisions in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) RCR(Crl.) 601 as well as in the case of S.S. Anand v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) RCR(Crl.) 688 and also in the case of Katta Sujata v. Fertilizers and Chemical Travancore Ltd. and another, 2002(4) RCR(Crl.) 502. It is, thus, prayed that the aforementioned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 4. It is, thus, prayed that the aforementioned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has, however, contended that once the petitioner has been named as a person responsible for quality control of the fertilizers under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, then that person would be responsible for maintaining the quality standards of the fertilizers produced and in case the fertilizers does not conform to the prescribed standards then it is the person named under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 who would be held responsible and liable to face prosecution. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. In the present case, the Chief Manager Production of the Company i.e. M/s IFFCO Limited was appointed as responsible person of the company as required under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. In order to hold a person responsible for the quality control of product it must be stated in the complaint that such a person was in overall control of the day-to-day business of the Company or Firm. The term "Person Incharge" must mean that the person must be in overall control of the day-to-day business of the Company and mere assertion that such a person appointed was a person responsible for the quality control of the products, does not carry any weight. Accordingly, being an employee of a Company would not make such a person liable to face the prosecution. In the present case, it is no where averred in the complaint that the petitioner was incharge and responsible for the overall conduct of the business of the Company and for maintaining the quality of the fertilizers. Apart from the above, even the Company has not been arrayed as an accused. 6. In view of the above, petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No. 97, dated 20.8.1997 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Petition allowed.