Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 95 (PNJ)

A. S. Sawhney v. State of Punjab

2003-01-21

R.C.KATHURIA

body2003
JUDGMENT R.C. Kathuria, J. - A.S. Sawhney, petitioner-accused seeks quashing of the order dated 5.5.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Sangrur whereby petitioner- accused has been summoned to face trial for violation of the provisions of Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, the Order, 1985) punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as, the Act). 2. In order to focus the controversy raised in the present petition, a few facts have to be noticed. On 26.5.1987 Dr. Balwant Singh, Agricultural Development Officer-cum-Fertilizer Inspector, Malerkotla visited the premises of M/s Gill Khad Store, Raikot Road, Malerkotla. The said store was found in possession of fertilizer zinc sulphate 21% (Taraju Brand) manufactured by M/s Tirupati Chemicals Ltd., Malerkotla. Three samples were drawn in accordance with prescribed procedure. One sample was sent to Analytical Chemist Punjab, Fertilizer Quality Centre Laboratory, Faridkot. Out of the remaining two samples, one was deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur and the third sample was handed over to the dealers representative. As per the report of Analytical Chemist, the sample was found to contain Zinc Sulphate by weight 19.20% instead of 21% of the minimum as per the Order, 1985. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur addressed a communication to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur who got the case registered. Accordingly, FIR No. 120 dated 10.6.1999 was registered with Police Station Malerkotla against Bhagat Singh son of Babu Singh, proprietor of M/s Gill Khad Store, Raikot Road, Malerkotla and Mr. A.S. Sawhney, being the responsible person of M/s. Tirupati Chemicals Ltd., Ludhiana Road, Malerkotla. 3. During the investigation of the case, Station House Officer, Police Station Malerkotla, filed an application in the Court seeking discharge of A.S. Sawhney. Notice of this application was given to Dr. Bhupinder Singh, Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur by the Court. In response to the said notice, Chief Agricultural Officer appeared before the Court and made a statement to the effect that as per record A.S. Sawhney was found to be the responsible person of M/s Tirupati Chemicals Ltd., Malerkotla. He had sent necessary intimation vide letter No. 3067 dated 14.5.1999 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. In response to the said notice, Chief Agricultural Officer appeared before the Court and made a statement to the effect that as per record A.S. Sawhney was found to be the responsible person of M/s Tirupati Chemicals Ltd., Malerkotla. He had sent necessary intimation vide letter No. 3067 dated 14.5.1999 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. This application for discharge of petitioner-accused was still pending when the police after completion of the investigation submitted the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) in the Court of Special Judge, Sangrur. A.S. Sawhney, petitioner-accused was not challaned and his name was kept in column No. 2. On 20.4.2000, the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State moved an application to the Court of Special Judge, Sangrur with a prayer to summon A.S. Sawhney, petitioner as an accused as his name had been specifically stated in the report lodged and also because in the affidavit of Mr. M.R. Garg, he was named as the responsible officer of M/s Tirupati Chemical Ltd., Malerkotla. Subsequent, thereto another application was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor on 29.4.2000 seeking withdrawal of the earlier application dated 20.4.2000 filed by him. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing the accused as well as on appraisal of the record annexed with the report filed by the police, the Special Judge, Sangrur found sufficient ground for proceeding against A.S. Sawhney and M/s Tirupati Chemicals Ltd. through its Managing Director, Mr. M.R. Garg, to face the trial for the aforesaid offence as per order dated 5.5.2000. Hence the present petition. 4. I heard counsel for the petitioner-accused as well as the State counsel at length. 5. Counsel representing the petitioner-accused while seeking quashing of the summoning order has mainly contended before me that on 26.5.1987 when the sample was taken by Dr. Balwant Singh from Bhagat Singh, dealer of the fertilizer in question at the trade premises of M/s Gill Khad Store, Raikot Road, Malerkotla, petitioner was merely an employee of the Company M/s Tirupati Chemicals Ltd., Malerkotla and for that reason, he should not have been summoned to face the prosecution along with other accused in this complaint. 6. Balwant Singh from Bhagat Singh, dealer of the fertilizer in question at the trade premises of M/s Gill Khad Store, Raikot Road, Malerkotla, petitioner was merely an employee of the Company M/s Tirupati Chemicals Ltd., Malerkotla and for that reason, he should not have been summoned to face the prosecution along with other accused in this complaint. 6. Opposing the submission made, it has been strenuously urged by the State counsel that M.R. Garg, Managing Director, had furnished an affidavit dated 25.11.1994 stating therein that Avtar Singh Sawhney who was the District Manager of M/s Tirupati Chemicals Ltd., Malerkotla was responsible for the compliance of the provisions of the Order, 1985 as required under Clause 24 of the Order which fact was fully supported by affidavit dated 20.4.1999 which was submitted by A.S. Sawhney, petitioner-accused himself, that he was responsible for the quality of zinc sulphate in terms of the requirement of Clause 24 of the Order and for that reason, the Special Judge, Sangrur was fully justified in summoning the petitioner-accused to face trial in respect of the aforesaid offences. 7. The stand taken from the side of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside at this stage. It is clearly brought on record that name of A.S. Sawhney, petitioner-accused was not only found mentioned in the FIR but also in the affidavit dated 26.11.1994 submitted by M.R. Garg, Managing Director, of the Company, being responsible, for the functions of the company and even in his own affidavit filed by the petitioner on 20.4.1999, this fact was admitted by him. In these circumstances, the stand of the petitioner that he was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, as such, has to be established during the trial of the case because it is a matter of fact to be decided by the Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.