CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

R.K.Thukral vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 9 October 2002 · Citation: (2003) 1 Cri.CC 287 : (2003) CrLJ 1046 : (2003) 1 RCR(Criminal) 187

HON’BLE JUDGES
Viney Mittal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40308-M of 2000
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 369 words

Viney Mittal, J.

1.

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioner R.K. Thukral for quashing of the complaint under Section 19(i)(a) of the Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1985 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. A copy of the complaint has been appended as Annexure P/2 with the petition.

2.

On November 20, 1997, the Fertilizer Inspector visited the premises of the dealer M/s. Pritam Singh and Company at Ludhiana and took the sample of some fertilizer which was manufactured by M/s. Varindra Agro Chemicals. Upon analysis of the same by the testing laboratory, the fertilizer was found to be substandard. A complaint was filed against the aforesaid dealer as well as present petitioner R.K. Thukral.

3.

The sole ground upon which the quashing of the complaint has been claimed by petitioner R.K. Thukral is that while filing the complaint, the manufacturing company has not been impleaded as a party. Shri Ravinder Chopra learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner could not be continued under the circumstances of the case. Shri Chopra has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in S.H. Chisty v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent C.R. 565 , Suresh Chand Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent Criminal Cases 696 and a judgement of this Court in N.K. Kakkar and others v. State of Punjab (Crl. Misc. No. 10011N of 1997) decided on August 1, 2002.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the submissions made by Shri Chopra have merit and deserve to succeed.

5.

I have perused the complaint and find that the company M/s. Varindra Agro Chemicals was not arrayed as a coaccused and, therefore, in the absence of the aforesaid company, the complaint could be filed against present petitioner R.K. Thukral who is President of the aforesaid Company. My view finds full support by the judgments in the case of S.H. Chisty''s case (supra), N.K. Kakkar''s case (supra) and Suresh Chand Sharma''s case (supra).

6.

In the result, the present petition is allowed and the complaint annexure P/2 and all consequential proceedings against the present petitioner stand quashed.