Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satwant Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 11 January, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Criminal Misc.No.M-5861 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-5861 of 2010
Date of Decision:11.01.2012
Satwant Singh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Rajpreet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) Succinctly, the relevant facts, which require to be noticed for deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, on the complaint of Sh.Harwinder Singh Bhatti, Chief Agriculture Officer, a criminal case was registered against M/s Baldev Sales Store through its proprietor Baldev Singh, M/s Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited through Sh.Vishnu Parshad, Manager (Technical Services) and the petitioners, for manufacturing, supplying, stocking and selling non-standard fertilizer, in violation of the provisions of Clause 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, and for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12AA of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").
2. The police investigated the case and submitted the final police report against the main accused M/s Baldev Sales Store and M/s Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited under Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, during the course of investigation, the petitioners-firm were found innocent and were not challaned by Criminal Misc.No.M-5861 of 2010 2 the police.
3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the main accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of indicated offence and the case was slated for evidence by the prosecution. The prosecution examined the witnesses, including the complainant-PW7, who made the statement(Annexure P-6). Thereafter, on the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial Court summoned the petitioners as an accused, to face the trial with the main accused, by means of impugned summoning order dated 21.10.2008(Annexure P-7).
4. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-7), the criminal revision petition filed by them(petitioners) was dismissed as well by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, by way of impugned order dated 07.11.2009(Annexure P-8).
5. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1), the impugned summoning order (Annexure P-7) and the revisional order(Annexure P-8), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.
7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the prayer, for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1) at this stage, without prejudice to their rights, in any manner. However, assailing the impugned summoning orders, learned counsel has contended with some amount of vehemence that the sub- standard fertilizer was manufactured by M/s Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited, which was directly supplied to M/s Baldev Sales Store. Since, there is not an iota of evidence on record that the petitioners are, in any way, connected with the sub-standard fertilizer, so, the courts below committed a legal mistake in arraying them(petitioners) as additional accused, by virtue of impugned Criminal Misc.No.M-5861 of 2010 3 summoning orders(Annexures P-7 and P-8). This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners has considerable force.
8. As is evident from the record that, during the course of investigation, the police found the petitioners innocent and did not challan them. In the wake of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution, they(petitioners) were summoned as an accused by the Magistrate, through the medium of impugned summoning order dated 21.10.2008(Annexure P-7), the operative part of which is as under:-
"Perusal of the file shows that there is incriminating evidence against the above persons. During trial, Harvinder Singh complainant was examined as PW7 by the prosecution. On the ground stated in the application and incriminating evidence against accused Satnam Singh and Harish Kumar as stated by complainant Harvinder Singh while stepping into the witness box as PW7. I deem it appropriate to summon accused Satnam Singh and Harish Kumar to face trial in the present case under Section 7 E.C.Act 8.19
(a) of Fertilizers Control Order 1985. Accordingly, accused Satnam Singh and Harish Kumar are ordered to be summoned to face trial under Section 7 E.C.Act 8.19(a) of Fertilizers Control Order, 1985 for 12.12.08. Process be issued for the date fixed."
9. As is clear that, Section 319 Cr.P.C. postulates that where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. That means, there must be reliable evidence that the petitioners have committed any offence, which is totally lacking in the instant case. The main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Magistrate, to summon the accused, is only the statement(Annexure P-6) of the complainant-PW7.
10. No implicit reliance can be placed on the statement(Annexure P-6) of the complainant-PW7 against the petitioners, at this stage, the relevant portion of which is as under:-
Criminal Misc.No.M-5861 of 2010 4
"Whole-seller Satwant Singh, Agricultural Engineering Company and Harish Kumar, Agriculture Engineer Company and Vishnu Kumar, Manager, Technical Service, Oswal Chemical Unit, Orissa are responsible for that. Retailer Baldev Singh also responsible. My statement was recorded."
11. Meaning thereby, PW7 has not uttered a word against the petitioners that how and in what manner, they(petitioners) are, in any way, connected with the commission of the crime committed by M/s Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited(Manufacturer), who directly delivered the sub-standard fertilizer to M/s Baldev Sales Store, by way of receipts(Annexures P-2 and P-3).
12. Therefore, to my mind, the trial Court has illegally summoned the petitioners as an accused, without any legal basis. Not only that, these vital aspects have also been ignored by the Revisional Court with impunity. It is now well- settled proposition of law that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion without any evidence as a matter of course, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case M/s Pepsi Foods Limited Versus Special Judicial Magistrate, 1998 AIR (SC)
128.
13. In this manner, to me, the impugned summoning order(Annexure P-
7) and the revisional order(Annexure P-8) cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
14. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition is partly accepted. The impugned summoning order(Annexure P-7) and the revisional order(Annexure P-8) are hereby quashed.
15. Needless to mention that, if any cogent evidence involving the complicity of the petitioners is brought on record by the prosecution at any subsequent stage, then the trial Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate order Criminal Misc.No.M-5861 of 2010 5 on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against them(petitioners) in the light of aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. In that eventuality, nothing recorded hereinabove, would reflect, in any manner in this regard, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition.
January 11, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No