Delhi District Court
Cr No.43/14 vs Seed Inspector on 7 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG: ASJ-03:
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CR No.43/14
Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd.
Opp. Brahma Kumari Ashram
Pataudi Road, Village Bhora Kalan
Bilaspur, Gurgaon-122413 (India)
Authorised representative
Shri Animesh Acharjee, Manager Legal
... Revisionist
Versus
Seed Inspector
Govt. of NCT
Office of Project Officer (IADP)
11th Floor, MSO Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
...Respondent
Date of Institution : 03.11.2014
Date of Arguments : 07.11.2014
Date of Decision : 07.11.2014
ORDER
1. Revisionist has knocked the door of this court assailing the order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Shri Ajay Kumar Malik in criminal complaint No.1267/14 whereby the ld. MM was pleased to issue the bailable warrants of the sum of CR No. 43/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.1 Rs.5,000/- against the accused No.2 Director of the accused company on filing of PF observing that the accused no.2 has not been appearing since long time. Revisionist assailed the said order stating that the order passed by the ld. MM is illegal, improper and incorrect in view of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 12.05.2010 whereby the Hon'ble High Court has stated that the word 'Shri Director' prefixed with the name of accused no.2 company was ordered to be deleted from the array of the accused persons in the original complaint filed before the court below and consequent thereto the impugned order dated 02.04.2009 stands modified to the extent that the said summoning order will be read against the accused no.2 company M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. He has submitted that inspite of the knowledge of the order, the ld. MM has issued the bailable warrants against the director of the company.
2. Upon filing of this revision petition, trial court record was summoned. As per trial court record, Seed Inspector D.R. Pal had filed a complaint against one Gaurav Dhingra S/o A.C. Dhinga of CR No. 43/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.2 M/s Khaitan Agro Seeds, 39, Indra Market, Subzi Mandi Delhi as well as Shri director M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. for the offence punishable under Section 7/19 of Seed Act, 1966. As per complaint, from the shop of Gaurav Dhingra, sample of tomato seeds were taken and tomato seeds were found sub-standard in laboratory test. The said tomato seeds F-1 Hybrid (7712) were manufactured by M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Trial court vide order dated 26.05.2007 had summoned both the accused persons. Bailable warrants were issued. Accused no.1 pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Bailable warrants were issued against the director of the company. Revisionist went in revision where the word 'Shri Director' prefixed before the company M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. was ordered to be deleted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal vide order dated 12.05.2010 meaning thereby the company has been substituted as accused no.2 in place of Shri Director. However, ld. MM vide order dated 07.10.2014 had issued bailable warrants of Rs.5000/- against the accused no.2 Director of the accused company on filing of PF and CR No. 43/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.3 RC.
3. Against the impugned order dated 30.07.2014, the present revisionist has knocked the door of this court stating that the order passed by the ld. MM is illegal, incorrect and improper. He has also drawn attention of this court towards the order sheet dated 20.11.2013 passed by the ld. MM whereby the ld. MM has mentioned itself that none for the accused no.2 M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. In the order sheet dated 30.07.2014, it was mentioned that Ms. Astha, ld. Counsel was appearing alongwith AR on behalf of the accused no.2. According to the revisionist, bailable warrants cannot be issued to the director in place of the company. M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. has been duly represented by the AR of the company. Therefore, in no circumstance, presence of director be secured through coercive process while the company has been represented by attorney.
4. Arguments of the counsel for the revisionist has force. When the company has been made as accused, then authorised representative can represent the company in the criminal court and CR No. 43/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.4 not necessarily by the director. Seed Inspector in his complaint has not mentioned the name of the director of the company against whom he wants to initiate the proceedings under Section 7/19 of Seed Act nor seed inspector had also made the company as additional accused if he wants to implead the director of the company. Law is well settled that company and director are separate entity. When the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 12.05.2010 has already deleted the prefix Shri Director before the company M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. then the company alone can be liable and it can be represented by the authorized representative. Therefore, order for issuance of the bailable warrants passed by the ld. MM against the director of M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. is a complete non-application of mind. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. MM is recalled and set aside. TCR alongwith a copy of this order is sent back to the trial court. Revision file is consigned to record room.
Announced in open court On 07.11.2014 (ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)/ Delhi CR No. 43/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.5 CR No.43/14 M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT 07.11.2014 Present: Revisionist in person with counsel.
Arguments have been heard. Trial court record was summoned forthwith.
Vide my separate order announced in open court, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the ld. MM is recalled and set aside. TCR alongwith a copy of this order is sent back to the trial court. Revision file is consigned to record room.
(ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)/ Delhi.
07.11.2014 CR No. 43/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.6