Delhi District Court
Cr No.45/14 vs Seed Inspector on 27 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG: ASJ-03:
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CR No.45/14
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 : 18.11.2014
Date of Arguments : 27.11.2014
Date of Decision : 27.11.2014
ORDER
1. Revisionary jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by the revisionist assailing the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the ld. Magistrate in criminal complaint case No. 621/SR/14 whereby the ld. Magistrate summoned the Directors of the petitioner company. CR No. 45/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.1 He has submitted that the impugned order passed by the ld. Magistrate is illegal and incorrect in terms of the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal of Delhi High Court whereby he had deleted the word 'Shri Director' prefixed with the name of the petitioner company from the array of the accused persons in the complaint filed before the Ld. Magistrate and consequent thereto the impugned summoning order dated 02.04.2009 stood modified to the extent that the said summoning order will be read against the petitioner company M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ms.Geetanjali, ld. Magistrate vide order dated 31.08.2010 had removed the word 'Shri Director' prefixed to the petitioner company and made the petitioner company alone as an accused. However, vide impugned order dated 30.10.2014, ld. Magistrate did not consider the submissions as well as the records and issued the direction for all the directors of the petitioner company to be present on the next date of hearing. He has submitted that the above CR No. 45/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.2 said order is required to be recalled being illegal and incorrect.
2. Upon filing of the revision petition, this court had summoned the respondent and called the trial court record. As per trial court record, a complaint under Section 7/19 of Seed Act, 1966 has been filed by the Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT of Delhi against Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi and Shri Director M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. stating that sample of Coriander seed was found sub-standard, which was taken by the Seed Inspector on 12.01.2007. Ld. Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence and accused were summoned. Accused Sanjay Kumar Tyagi was admitted on bail. Vide order dated 9.4.2009, ld. Magistrate had stated that the accused no.1 was not the company rather than the Director of the company. On 11.05.2010 Managing Director of the Company M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd was summoned by the court. Vide order dated 31.08.2010, ld. Magistrate had removed the prefixed word 'Shri Director' before the accused no.2 and in his place the company was made as an accused. This effect was given in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal of High CR No. 45/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.3 Court of Delhi. Thereafter vide order dated 30.10.2014, ld. Magistrate had directed all the directors of the company to appear on 01.12.2014.
3. Against the impugned order dated 30.10.2014, this revision petition has been filed stating that the order is incorrect and illegal in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal of High Court of Delhi whereby the word 'Shri Director' prefixed was removed before the respondent/ accused no.2.
4. Seed Inspector as well as Joint Director have appeared in the court. They had admitted their mistake in filing the complaint in the name of 'Shri Director' and they had assured to this court that such type of mistake will not be repeated in future.
5. It is settled principle of law that liability of the directors is vicarious liability. Main act has been done by the company while the director had been carrying the execution of the work of the company. Unless company is made an accused, director cannot be held liable. Might be that, the company alone be prosecuted by the person or the agency for their misdeeds, criminal act, but in the CR No. 45/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.4 absence of company to be prosecuted, the director cannot be prosecuted. Here in the present case, trial court had already corrected its order in terms of the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal and removed the word 'Shri Director' before the accused no.2, which is a company M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Inspite of this, Ld. Magistrate Ajay Kumar Malik, who had succeeded the court had directed the director of the accused no.2 to appear, which is inconsistent with the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal of High Court of Delhi. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. MM dated 30.10.2014 being complete non-application of mind is recalled and set aside. Consequent thereto, the revision petition is allowed. 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 27.11.2014 (ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)/ Delhi CR No. 45/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.5 CR No.45/14 M/s Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT 27.11.2014 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.
27.11.2014 CR No. 45/14 Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector, Govt. of NCT Page No.6