Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1248 (PNJ)

Rajinder Kumar Sharma v. State Of Punjab

2005-12-08

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is a petition against order dated 15.1.2004 of Special Judge, Kapurthala whereby application under Section 245 Cr. P.C. of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings had been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are Fertilizer Inspector had taken sample of Super Phosphate from the premises of M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath and on analysis that sample was not found to be in accordance with the standard laid down in the Fertilizer (Control) Order. Then prosecution was launched against M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath and is partners. Rajinder Kumar, present petitioner, was one of the partners. The other partners had been Vishwa Nath and Rakesh Kumar. 3. The contention of the petitioner was that he had left the country in 1991. He was never residing in India nor he was taking any active part in the business of M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath. Petitioner filed an affidavit showing that from November 1991 to December 1994 he was continuously working seven days a week without any leave of absence in New York (USA). Then he came for the first time to India in 1998 after the year 1991. He produced copies of the passport also in this connection. 4. There has been no averments or specific allegations against the present petitioner in the complaint filed by the State through Chief Agriculture Officer, Kapurthala. He had been prosecuted only because he happened to be partner of the firm M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath from which sample was taken. That firm Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath and its other partners and then who manufactured etc had been separately prosecuted and sentenced. 5. When there had been no averments or specific allegations against the present petitioner and he was not in this country at the relevant time when the sample was taken, then it cannot be said that he shall be liable for offence under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act merely because he was a partner of the firm. 6. Under these circumstances, I find merit in this petition. The same is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.1.2004 of Special Judge, Kapurthala is set aside and petitioner is discharged from the case.