Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)
Sohan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 2024 cites

M/S Cheminova India Limited And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 24 February, 2014

11. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that since they were not the residents of Bathinda, the Magistrate concerned had erred in summoning them to face trial without following the mandatory provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. This argument too cannot be accepted as with regard to the procedure contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.,, the same is to be viewed, keeping in mind that the complainant iiss a public servant who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. The legislature in 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 23:30:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:135835 CRM-M-41699 41699-2022 (O&M) -10- its wisdom has itself placed the public servant on a different pedestal, as would be evident from a perusal of proviso to Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Object of holding an inquiry / investigation before taking cognizance, in cases where accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of such Magistrate, is to ensure that innocents are not harassed unnecessarily. By virtue of proviso to Section 200 of Cr.P.C.,, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon M/s Cheminova's case (supra), wherein similar oobservations Cheminova's bservations have been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 28 - S Gupta - Full Document

Samsuzzoha @ Santanu & Anr vs Crm (Ndps) 369 Of 2022 on 11 April, 2022

5. Per contra,, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners by arguing that the petitioners, petitioners being proprietor and responsible persons of the firm firm, the manufacturing firm 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 23:30:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:135835 CRM-M-41699 41699-2022 (O&M) -5- and employee of the firm,, were directly responsible for the affairs of the firm, particularly for ensuring the quality of its insecticides. They have committed the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections of the Act, 1968 1968.. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners qua delay in sending the samples for analysis, it is submitted that the samples were kept in a sealed, intact and unbroken condition and were also found to be fit for analysis. It is also submitted that since the shelf life of the sample was upto August, 2016, the delay of 13 days in sending the same for analysis cannot be considered prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners petitioners, especially in view of the fact that on their request, the sample was sent for re re-analysis and both the laboratories had found the same to be fit for analysis and had reported the same to be misbranded. While submitting that no grounds have been made out for quashing the complaint and the order issuing process to the petitioners, petitioners it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. To fortify her argument, learned State counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh h and another vs. State of Punjab Punjab, CRM-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document
1