Quashed

Health Biotech Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2014CRM-M/17235/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed a summary trial court summoning order issued under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that the trial court failed to consider whether specific directors or responsible technical persons were named as accused before issuing summons, rendering the order liable to be set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 30.4.2009 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed; trial court directed to pass fresh order.

Health Biotech Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-17235 of 2014 (O&M)

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-17235 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.9.2014.

¶5

Health Biotech Limited and others

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of complaint No. 246-CJM of 22.5.2008 (Annexure P-18) titled 'Haryana State through Drugs Control Officer, Gurgaon versus M/s Health Biotech (P) Limited' as well as the summoning order dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure P-19).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners were not implicated as accused by name in the complaint Annexure P-18. The Trial Court had also passed the summoning order without looking into the matter as to whether the directors of the firm had been specifically named by the complainant or not.

¶16

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

¶17

In the present case, complaint has been filed by

¶18

GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.26 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-17235 of 2014 (O&M) -2 -

¶20

respondent No. 2 against M/s Health Biotech (P) Limited as accused No. 1 and against all responsible directors and responsible technical persons of the firm as accused No. 2.

¶21

The impugned summoning order Annexure P-19 reads as under:-

¶22

“Complaint received. It be checked and registered. The present complaint has been filed by a Public Servant in the discharge of his official duty and therefore, recording of preliminary evidence is dispensed with.

¶23

Heard, documents attached with the complaint perused. In my opinion, there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 27(d) and 27(a) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

¶24

Accordingly, accused be summoned to stand trial under the aforesaid offence for 19.11.2009, on filing of PF and copy etc. long date due to heavy pendency.”

¶25

Thus, a perusal of the above order reveals that at the time of ordering the summoning of the accused, the Trial Court has failed to consider as to whom the summons were being issued as the names of the directors or the responsible technical persons had not come on record. In these circumstances, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside and it would be just and expedient to direct the Trial Court to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.

¶26

Accordingly, impugned summoning order dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure P-19) and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. The Trial Court is directed to

¶27

GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.26 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

Crl. Misc. No. M-17235 of 2014 (O&M)

¶29

-3 -

¶30

pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.

¶31

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶33

September 24, 2014 Gurpreet

¶34

GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.26 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Health Biotech Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Health Biotech Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Meena Vs State of Punjab

Gagan Kumar Bakshi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Vallabh Silk Vs Harshad Jain

Anup Gupta Vs State of Haryana

Baltej Singh Vs State of Punjab