w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Health Biotech Limited & Others v/s State of Haryana & Another

    Crl. Misc. No. M-17235 of 2014 (O&M)
    Decided On, 24 September 2014
    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana
    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
    For the Petitioners: Akshay Jain, Advocate. For the Respondents: Abhilaksh Grover, AAG, Haryana.


Judgment Text
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 v. M/s Health Biotech (P) Limited' as well as the summoning order dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure P-19).

2. 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.

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

4. In the present case, complaint has been filed by 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.

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

"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.

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.

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."

6. 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.

7. Accordingly, impugned summoning or

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
der dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure P-19) and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. The Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. 8. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
O R