Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1530 (PNJ)

Rajesh Garg v. State Of Haryana

2006-04-19

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment M. M. Aggarwal, J. 1. This is petition against order dated 26.11.1987 passed by Sessions Judge, Jind whereby revision filed by Harbans Singh had been accepted and Sessions Judge, Jind had discharged Harbans Singh from the case and had directed that further proceedings, according to law, will be taken as against manufacturer Markanda Vanaspati Mills Limited shahabad Tehsil Thanesar. 2. Facts of the case are that on 23.5.1983, Food Inspector had purchased sealed tin of 16 1/2 kg of sagar Vanaspati Ghee from the shop of Harbans singh at Safidon. Samples drawn from that tin were not upto the prescribed standard and as such these were found to be adulterated. A complaint was filed as against Harbans Singh by the Government Food Inspector. Later on, Harbans Singh pleaded that the tin had been manufactured by Markanda vanaspati Mills Limited Shahabad Tehsil Thanesar. Then a notice was issued to the manufacturer. One C. M. Kohli had put in appearance on behalf of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Limited, Shahabad Tehsil Thanesar. He challenged the order of his summoning. He was discharged. Company had authorised Rajesh Garg vide its letter dated 1.10.1985 to act and conduct the legal proceedings in the case titled as Food Inspector vs. Harbans Singh. 3. After Rajesh Garg came to the Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, jind had discharged him and had directed that proceedings shall be only as against Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh filed petition against order dated 5.4.1986 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. It was accepted by the sessions Judge, Jind vide impugned order. 4. Counsel for the petitioner argues that there is no evidence at all on the record that Rajesh Garg is the manufacturer. It is also argued that rajesh Garg already stood discharged by the CJM, Jind and that in the revision petition filed by Harbans Lal against that order, no direction could be issued as against Rajesh Garg. 5. In this case, a notice had been issued to Harbans Singh but it is reported that he has since left Safidon and his place of business also. 6. Sample in this case had been taken as far back as in the year 1983. 5. In this case, a notice had been issued to Harbans Singh but it is reported that he has since left Safidon and his place of business also. 6. Sample in this case had been taken as far back as in the year 1983. Although Harbans Singh had produced a bill in the Court having purchased the tins from Markanda Vanaspati Mills Limited, Shahabad, Tehsil Thanesar but there is no record that Rajesh Garg was the manufacturer or in any way responsible for the affairs of the company. 7. I am of the view that at this belated stage after 23 years of taking of sample when Harbans Singh, from whom sample was drawn, is not available and had been discharged, no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings as against Rajesh Garg present petitioner or owner of Markanda vanaspati Mills Limited. Continuing proceeding will just be wastage of time of Court and misuse of process of the Court. 8. Under these circumstances, petition is accepted. Order dated 26.11.1987 passed by Sessions Judge, Jind is set aside. Petition allowed.