Jagesh Kumar Khaitan vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the order dated 18th September, 1997 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, who dismissed the request of the petitionercompany and decided to proceed with the proceedings by calling the Managing Director of the Company as an accused, being the in charge and responsible for the affairs of the Company.

Some facts can be noticed. The State filed the criminal proceedings under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against Suresh Kumar son of Shri Kishan Chand of M/s Bansal Karyana Store, Main Bazar, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur. During the course of these criminal proceedings, the prosecution filed an application for summoning the distributor and manufacturer of M/s Amrit Vanaspati Company as an accused and vide order dated 19th January, 1996 the dealer and the manufacturer were ordered to be summoned by the Court. On behalf of the dealer Shri Parkash Chand appeared and on behalf of the manufacturer, i.e., Amrit Vanaspati Company, Shri S.S. Virk appeared, being the representative of the Company, under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Objection was taken to the appearance of Shri. S.S. Virk that on the date of the alleged commission of the offence i.e. on 22nd June, 1994 when the sample was taken, Shri S.S. Virk was not the nominee of the Company. This objection was upheld by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, vide impugned order dated 18th September, 1997 and directions were given to the Managing Director to appear on behalf of the Company. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision petition has been filed by the Managing Director of the Company.

I have heard Shri S.C. Sibal, Senior Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and Shri J.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, who appeared on behalf of the State.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, given under para No. 3 of the impugned order are erroneous on the face of it. According to Mr. Sibal, the Company passed a resolution on 19th August, 1993 vide which Shri Satinder Singh Virk (Shri S.S. Virk) was nominated as in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at Rajpura unit and to this extent intimation was given to the local authorities vide letter dated 25th August, 1993 and the said letter was received by the local authorities on 5th October, 1993 and has been entered in the receipt register at serial No. 2721 and it has been even initialled and signed by the receipt clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this fact has been ignored by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who has been misled by the State that the nomination of Mr. S.S. Virk was made on 28th March, 1996.

On the contrary Mr. J.S. Brar submits that the finding of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is correct because the company itself has given a declaration appointing Shri S.S. Virk on 28th March, 1996.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the documentary evidence, which has been relied upon and placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the revision, a chance should be given to the company to establish whether Shri Virk was nominated as a representative on behalf of the company on 19th August, 1993 or otherwise. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Shri Virk was nominated as representative on 19th August, 1993, whether intimation regarding his nomination was received by the local authorities on 5th August, 1993 or not. This would be a vital question in order to summon the Managing Director of the Company. If the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ultimately comes to the conclusion that the local authorities did not receive an information on 5th October, 1993 and the resolution dated 29th August, 1993 was still in force and was never considered by the company, in that eventuality Mr. Virk was the right type of person to appear on behalf of the Company before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. If the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate comes to a conclusion different than the one stated above, of course, he will have the right to call the Managing Director of the Company to face the Criminal Proceedings as an accused.

In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 18th September, 1997 is hereby set aside and directions are given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur to decide at the first instance whether on the date of the alleged commission of the offence Shri S.S. Virk was duly nominated representative on behalf of the Company. The petitioner can lead such evidence before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in order to convince him that the authority of Mr. S.S. Virk was never abrogated or withdrawn. Till this aspect of the case is decided, Mr. Satinder Singh Virk shall continue to appear on behalf of the Company. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the next date of hearing.

The revision petition is accepted in the above terms.