Skip to content


Hindustan Pulverising Mills Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 499 of 1994
Judge
Reported in[1995]83CompCas75(P& H)
ActsInsecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 33; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 305
AppellantHindustan Pulverising Mills
RespondentState of Haryana
Appellant Advocate S.M.S. Pasricha, Adv.
Respondent Advocate P.S. Sullar, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 3. under section 53 of the insecticides act, 1968, whenever an offence is committed by a company every person who at the time of commission of the offence was in charge of that company or was responsible to the company for the cpnduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly......petition is filed to direct the judicial magistrate 1st class, jagadhri, to allow mohinder singh chauhan, senior supervisor production in charge, to represent the company, hindustan pulverising mills, delhi, which is an accused in criminal complaint no. 1392 of 1993 for an offence under section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968. the sub-divisional agriculture officer, jagadhri, filed a complaint against three accused, namely hindustan pulverising mills, azadpur, delhi, shri d. v. devrani, chief chemist of hindustan pulverising mills, and mr. khurshbinder pal, proprietor of vaspal pesticides, jagadhri. 2. according to the petitioner, the company, namely, accused no. 1, deputed mohinder singh chauhan, senior supervisor, production in charge, as an authorised person to appear on.....
Judgment:

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

1. This revision petition is filed to direct the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri, to allow Mohinder Singh Chauhan, senior supervisor production in charge, to represent the company, Hindustan Pulverising Mills, Delhi, which is an accused in Criminal Complaint No. 1392 of 1993 for an offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri, filed a complaint against three accused, namely Hindustan Pulverising Mills, Azadpur, Delhi, Shri D. V. Devrani, Chief Chemist of Hindustan Pulverising Mills, and Mr. Khurshbinder Pal, proprietor of Vaspal Pesticides, Jagadhri.

2. According to the petitioner, the company, namely, accused No. 1, deputed Mohinder Singh Chauhan, senior supervisor, production in charge, as an authorised person to appear on behalf of the company, HindustanPulverising Mills; Delhi, but the learned Magistrate has not taken the application filed by the company through Mohinder Singh Chauhan. Therefore, the company filed the above revision petition to give a direction to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhru to allow the company, the first accused, to be represented by Mohinder Singh Chauhan.

3. Under Section 53 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, whenever an offence is committed by a company every person who at the time of commission of the offence was in charge of that company or was responsible to the company for the cpnduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Under Sub-clause (2) of Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation. Thus, the company can be represented by its authorised representative. According to the petitioner, Mohinder Singh Chauhan is the person in charge of production and he is also person authorised to appear on behalf of the company, namely, Hindustan Pulverising Mills, Delhi. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to file an application before the learned Magistrate to allow the company to be represented by Mohinder Singh Chauhan and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider that application and pass an appropriate order in the light of the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Insecticides Act and also under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is accordingly disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //