Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr R.I. Modi vs State on 11 September, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2428 / 2016
Dr R.I. Modi Managing Director, Managing Director of Accused
No.1, I.R.M. House, Off G.C. Road, Kalpana Society, Navrang Pura,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit PP for the State.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 11/09/2017
1. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.07.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner (Raj.) in Criminal Case No.161/2002 and in the matter of Section 305 read with 205 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provision of Section 305 Cr.P.C., when the company or corporation is prosecuted for any offence, then it has to be represented by a person appointed by it, to defend it before the Court. The summons issued to the petitioner is obviously in the capacity of the company's representative and nothing beyond that. The company is always at liberty to appoint any responsible person it thinks fit to plead its case in the trial Court and in this (2 of 5) [CRLMP-2428/2016] case representative has already been appointed and learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that such representative shall appear on all dates in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the reliance on the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Kumath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal misc. Petition No. 346/2011) decided on 10.12.2013
4. The coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.12.2013 has passed the following order in Ashok Kumar Kumath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Supra):-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 19.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera whereby the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner as the representative of the company M/s. Arihant Phosphate and Fertilizers Ltd., Nimbahera to face trial on behalf of the company for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and for the violation of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.
Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant misc. petition are that a complaint was filed by the Fertilizer Officer cum Agriculture Officer in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera against M/s. Arihant Phosphate and Fertilizers Ltd., Nimbahera and its quality control Incharge and Manager (Production) - Shri Virendra Badri Prasad. The allegation levelled in the complaint was that the sample of the fertilizer taken from the company premises was found to be (3 of 5) [CRLMP-2428/2016] sub-standard upon analysis by the concerned laboratory. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate summoned the company as well as co-accused Virendra Badri Prasad to face trial for the offences set out in the complaint.
The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the order dated 19.2.2011 whereby he was summoned by a bailable warrant in this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Ashok Kumar Kumath was not responsible for the manufacture of the fertilizer and for the quality control thereof. He, therefore, submits that the summoning of the petitioner to face trial is absolutely unwarranted.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urges that the petitioner can always appear before the trial Court and demonstrate that he was not responsible for the commission of the offence and thereafter, the learned trial Court can drop the proceedings against the petitioner.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the order impugned as well as the complaint.
In the opinion of this Court, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Ashok Kumar has been summoned to face trial in this case is totally unjustified and unfounded. As a matter of fact, it is a case wherein the complaint has been filed against the company and Virendra Badri Prasad for the violation of the Fertilizer Control Order. As the company is a juristic person, some person has to represent it before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not proposed that no offence was committed at all in this (4 of 5) [CRLMP-2428/2016] case and that the whole proceedings should be quashed.
As per the provision of Section 305 Cr.P.C., when the company or corporation is prosecuted for any offence, then it has to be represented by a person appointed by it, to defend it before the Court. The summons issued to the petitioner is obviously in the capacity of the company's representative and nothing beyond that. The company is always at liberty to appoint any responsible person it thinks fit to plead its case in the trial Court.
In this view of the matter, the instant misc. petition is disposed of with the following directions :-
(i) the order issuing bailable warrant against the petitioner passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is quashed. The petitioner shall, however, either himself or through his counsel appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of four weeks from today and file an undertaking before the Court giving the details of the person who shall represent the company in the proceedings before the learned trial Court.
(ii) The company shall be entitled to appoint any appropriate person to represent it in the trial Court in accordance with Section 305(2) Cr.P.C. The proceedings of the trial shall be undertaken against the company in the light of the provisions of Section 305 Cr.P.C.
Stay petition also stands disposed of."
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions.
6. In light of the aforementioned judgment, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.07.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.161/2002 passed by CJM, Bikaner is (5 of 5) [CRLMP-2428/2016] quashed and set aside and the personal attendance of the accused is dispensed with. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
7. However, the learned court below shall issue orders any time it requires the petitioner to be present for the satisfaction so recorded by the learned court below, in case so required.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. ck