Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 256 (RAJ)

RAJEEV DUBEY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-01-18

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking to challenge the order dated 21.8.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Cr. Complaint Case No. 165/2007 (248/2004) whereby, the application filed by the petitioners seeking dropping of the proceedings by resorting to Section 258 Cr.P.C., 1973 was dismissed and so also the order dated 12.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in revision affirming the said order. 3. The complaint in question was filed against the petitioners, who are the Directors of the manufacturing company M/s.Ralichem Ltd. for the offences under the Insecticides Act. 4. Shri Shah buttressed that there are no specific allegations in the complaint regarding the responsibility of the petitioners, who are the Directors of the company for its day to day affairs and as such, relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. M/s.Godfather Travels and Tours reported in (2012)5 SCC 661 , Shri Shah prayed that the proceedings of the complaint should be quashed qua the petitioners. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel and pointed out that it is pertinently mentioned in para No. 17 of the complaint that the petitioners are responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. The said assertion is supported by documentary evidence, which the petitioners have conveniently omitted to file on record of the petition. 6. In view of the submissions noted here-in-above and considering the fact that the prosecution was initiated against the petitioners after taking permission from the Joint Director, Agriculture, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur and as there is no material available on record so as to persuade this Court to accept the contention of Shri Shah, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders, which are perfectly just and lawful. The petitioners, if so desire, may appear before the trial court and submit the relevant documents so as to fortify the assertion that they were not responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. Upon such objections being raised, the trial court shall pass the appropriate orders thereupon. 7. The petitioners, if so desire, may appear before the trial court and submit the relevant documents so as to fortify the assertion that they were not responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. Upon such objections being raised, the trial court shall pass the appropriate orders thereupon. 7. With these observations and directions, the instant misc. petition as well as stay petition are rejected.