Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maya Ram & Others vs State Of Haryana -Respondent on 23 April, 2009
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
Criminal Misc. No. M-10727 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-10727 of 2009
Date of decision: April 23, 2009
Maya Ram & others -Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. AS Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
This is a petition seeking quashing of the order dated 14.2.2009 (Annexure P8) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners for setting-aside the charges framed against them under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC, was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was registered under Sections 407, 420 & 120-B IPC on the complaint of an Assistant Manager of Food Corporation of India, alleging that 712 bags of good quality rice bound for Hathras were replaced by low quality rice, thereby causing a loss of Rs. 5 lacs to the Corporation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against four accused, namely Sunil Kumar, Sultan Singh, Daljit Singh and Satnam Singh. However, M/s Ashoka Trading Company, of which the petitioners were partners, was found to be innocent by the investigating agency. After some evidence was led before the trial Court, an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was Criminal Misc. No. M-10727 of 2009 2 moved for summoning of M/s Ashoka Trading Company as additional accused. Vide order dated 19-1-2007(Annexure P-4), the application was allowed and M/s Ashoka Trading Company was ordered to be summoned as additional accused through its partners. Later all the accused petitioners were charge sheeted on 10-7-2008 and their revision petition against framing of charges was dismissed on 14.2.2009.
The learned counsel has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioners could not be summoned to face trial as they were merely partners of M/s Ashoka Trading Company. According to him, the revisional court has erroneously dismissed the revision petition, as summoning of the Company would not imply that its partners are also supposed to face trial. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported as Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & others, 2005(4) SCC 520 in support of his contention.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
The order passed by the trial Court at the stage application under Section 319 Cr.PC was allowed is Annexure P4 to the petition. The concluding part of the said order reads thus:
"Hence the application filed by the Public Prosecutor is allowed. Accused M/s. Ashoka & Company Kurukshetra through its partners Prem Chand s/o Sh. Harbans Lal r/o Subhash Mandi, Kurukshetra, Maya Ram s/o Chhajju Ram r/o Village Chanderbhanpur, District Kurukshetra and Ashoka Kumar s/o Narsing r/o U.E. Kurukshetra are ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 407,420 IPC for 22.Criminal Misc. No. M-10727 of 2009 3
Announced in open Court Sd/-
19-01-2007 Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kurukshetra "
The aforesaid order passed by the trial court was never challenged by the petitioner. It is clear from the order that the petitioners were summoned by name to face trial. Even in the application moved by the Public Prosecutor, which is Annexure P-3 to the petition, there is an averment in para 2 thereof that the petitioners were partners of M/s Ashoka Trading Company and were responsible for the business and daily affairs of the firm and were thus liable to be prosecuted along with the other accused. A prayer was made for summoning M/s Ashoka Trading Company and its partners to face trial along with the other accused. The said application was allowed by the trial Court. A perusal of the order shows that the court was conscious of the fact that both, the Company and its partners, had been summoned to face trial. This order admittedly obtained finality. Thereafter charges were framed against the accused by the trial court on 10.7.2008. The petitioners impugned the same before Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on the ground that only the Company could be charge sheeted and not the partners thereof. However, this plea was found untenable as after being summoned by the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the petitioners became as accused in the case and thus charges were framed against them. The petitioners again raised the same plea that they could not be charge sheeted, as accused was only Ashoka Trading Company. This plea was, however, not accepted by the Court below in view of order earlier passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Under the circumstances, in my considered view, there is no legal infirmity with the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Criminal Misc. No. M-10727 of 2009 4 Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the revision petition moved by the petitioners for setting aside the order framing charge against them.
Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show as to how the judgment in Standard Chartered Bank's case ( supra) is applicable to the facts of the case in hand. The counsel has only emphasized that according to the said judgment, a juristic person can be prosecuted even for offences for which sentence is prescribed.
However, in the present case charges have been framed against both i.e. the Company as well as its partners individually. It is not just the company which has been charged of the offences under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC but the partners as well. Thus the learned counsel has not been able to show as to how the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case.
No other argument has been addressed.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.
[Rajan Gupta] Judge April 23, 2009.
'ask'