Allowed

Prem a Devidayal and Anr. v. State

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2024CRLMP/1107/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against two company directors praying that they are not responsible for daily business and no re-analysis right was given. Court granted relief.

What did the court decide?

Order of cognizance in Criminal Case No.599/2001 and entire proceedings qua the petitioners quashed; petitioners exonerated; proceedings dropped.

Prem a Devidayal and Anr. Vs State — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:25528]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1107/2012

¶4

1.Prem A Devidayal S/o Shri Amirchand T. Gupta B/c Gupta, C/o Devidayal (Sales) Limited, Devidayal Estate, Ist Floor, Reay Road Mumbai 400010 [Director] 2. Ram A. Devidayal S/o Shri Amirchand T. Gupta B/c Gupta, C/o Devidayal (Sales) Limited, Keval Corporate Park, Block-B, 2^nd Floor, Nr. Prakruti Resort, Chhani Vadodara 391740 [Director]

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

	Versus
State Of Rajasthan
	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Mehar,PP

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶8

	Order
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON	:::	01/07/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON	:::	23/05/2024

¶9

BY THE COURT:-

¶10

By way of filing the instant Miscellaneous Petition, prayer has been made for quashing of complaint and dropping of further proceedings against the petitioner Prem A. Devidayal and Ram A. Devi Dayal on the grounds that they being the Directors of the company are not responsible for the day-to-day affairs, conduct, and business of the company.

[2024:RJ-JD:25528]

[CRLMP-1107/2012]

(2 of 4)

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shri S.K. Verma, Plant Protection Officer and Inspector, visited the shop of M/s Ajay Agro Agency, Suratgarh on 26-12-2000 and took samples of methyl parathion 2% DP. After drawing samples in three packets as per usual mode of procedure, the same was sent to the Public Analyst, Faridabad for the purpose of analysis. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner's company being the Distributor and a reply in pursuance thereof was sent on 12-03-2001, making a request for re-analysis of the sample.

¶15

The quashing of the proceedings has been made mainly on two counts. (i) The valuable right to have re-analysis of the sample has not been provided. (ii) Petitioner simply being Directors are not responsible for the conduct and business of the company since they were not in-charge and responsible for dayto-day affairs of the company.

¶16

As per Section 33 of the Insecticides Fertilizer (Control) Order and Seeds along with Essential Commodities Act, a responsible person can be nominated for the conduct and business of the company, and in this case the accused No.4. Ashu Singhal S/o R.K.Singhal, was the person responsible for day to day affairs, conduct and business of the company. As a matter of fact, accused petitioners No.1, 2, and 3 viz., M/s Ajay Agro seed, Ajay Kumar, Branch Officers, M/s Devi Dayal, have appeared before the trial Court and pleaded guilty, accordingly their case has been disposed of. Since the accused No. 4 and 5 were in-charge and responsible

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:25528]

[CRLMP-1107/2012]

persons for the conduct and business of the company, therefore there remains no need to array the petitioners also as an accused simply because they are the Directors of the company.

¶21

Nothing is there on record or even there is no mentioning in the complaint that the petitioners-Directors were having any control or supervision of the affairs, business, production, and day-to-day activity of the company at any level. The right to seek for further analysis of the sample on behalf of the petitioner has also not been afforded and as such they have been deprived of statutory right, and the same exercise can’t be done now since by the lapse of time, the self life of the commodity must have been expired. In this view of the matter, this court feels that further proceedings qua the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law.

¶22

Accordingly the instant Misc. Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order taking cognizance dated 27-1-2012 in Criminal Case No.599/2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar as well as the entire proceeding qua the petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside. They are exonerated from the charges. The proceedings against them shall be dropped forthwith.

¶23

Record be sent forthwith.

¶24

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶25

Mamta/-

¶26

[2024:RJ-JD:25528] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1107/2012]

Prem a Devidayal and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem a Devidayal and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramzan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Khushbu Vs State of Rajasthan

Himmatha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Karan Vs State and Anr.