Delhi District Court
Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd vs Seed Inspector on 3 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR:SPECIAL JUDGE2
NDPS ACT:(CENTRAL DISTRICT):TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
Decided on: 03.03.2017
Case No. 101/17
CR No. : 34/17 Date of Instt. 23.2.2017
Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd.
Opp. Brahma Kumari Ashram,
Pataudi Road, Village Bhora Kalan,
Bilaspur, Gurgaon - 122 413 India
Authorized Representative
Shri Animesh Acharjee,
Manager Legal
.....Petitioner
Versus
Seed Inspector
Govt. of NCT,
Office of Project Officer (IADP),
11th Floor, MSO Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi110002.
.....Respondent
Nunhems India v. Seed Inspector Page 1
JUDGMENT
By way of present revision petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 23.1.2017 passed Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 54531/1 of 2007 (old) and 621/SR/2014 (new).
2. Vide impugned order, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has served notice on the accusedpetitioner company and coaccused Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, its Director, for an offence u/s 19 of Seeds Act, 1966 and adjourned the complaint for evidence of the complainant.
3. ComplainantSeed Inspector filed complaint u/s 7 r.w. Section 19 of Seed Act 1977 on 23.5.2007 on the averments that as per report of the expert, the sample of Seed (Coriander) taken from the premises of the said Nunhems India v. Seed Inspector Page 2 Company was found to be of substandard.
The only contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that in the criminal complaint submitted by the complainant in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, reliance was placed by the complainant on notification dated 10.10.1991 but during enquiry before the trial court, the complainant placed on record some other notification dated 24.11.99. The submission is that in the given situation when mistake had crept in the complaint regarding the date of notification, complainant should have withdrawn the said complaint and then filed a fresh complaint mentioning therein the relevant notification dated 24.11.99, and that since Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate proceeded to serve notice upon the accusedpetitioner, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, the contention raised by the complainantrespondent is that inadvertently, the date of Nunhems India v. Seed Inspector Page 3 notification was typed as 10.10.91 whereas the exact notification is dated 24.11.99 which was placed before Ld. Trial Magistrate. The complainantrespondent further submitted that in the given situation, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate rightly took on record the relevant notification dated 24.11.99 and that present petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Trial Court Record reveals that in the body of complaint submitted to court, complainantrespondent did not mention about any notification. The date of notification was mentioned only in the list of documents. Copy of notification dated 10.10.91 was annexed to the list when the case was pending for arguments on the point of notice. On 15.7.2017, complainantrespondent produced on record the notification. The complainant was directed to supply its copy to the accused persons. On 2.8.2016, complainant filed an application with the notification and that is how, copy came Nunhems India v. Seed Inspector Page 4 to be supplied to the accused persons. The notification was produced on record is dated 24.11.99. The complaint was filed in court on 23.5.07, on the basis of cause of action which arose in 2007. So this is not a case where complainantrespondent relied on any notification of subsequent date. It appears that while preparing the list of documents, the complainantrespondent relied on notification dated 10.10.91 whereas actually reliance was to be placed on notification dated 24.11.99. Having realized the mistake regarding the date of notification and that some other notification had been annexed to the complaint, Ld. Trial Magistrate permitted the complainantrespondent to place on record the relevant notification of the year 1999. In the given facts and circumstances, court does not find that complainantrespondent should have withdrawn the complaint initially presented simply because there was mistake in the date of the concerned notification and copy of the concerned notification had not been filed. Since, the Nunhems India v. Seed Inspector Page 5 complaint did not refer to the notification, no amendment of the complaint was required. Therefore, decision in S.R.Sukumar Vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. In view of the above discussion, court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 23.01.2017 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Accordingly, revision petition is hereby dismissed.
7. Trial court record be returned. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial court. File of revision petition be consigned to RecordRoom.
Announced in the open Court on this 3rd March, 2017 (NARINDER KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS02 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Nunhems India v. Seed Inspector Page 6