- (1.) Special leave granted. One Nohar Chand, the respondent herein, was carrying on business of manufacturing fertilisers, at Ludhiana under the name and style of M/s. Varinder Agro-Chemicals (India). One Inspector designated as Fertiliser Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapurthala ('agent' for short) on December 12, 1978 and obtained a sample of the fertiliser manufactured by Nohar Chand which was being marketed by the agent. The sample was obtained for the purpose of analysis to ascertain whether it conformed to the prescribed standard. On analysis it was found to be sub-standard. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala filed a criminal complaint being, C.C. No. 156-C of 1980 on December 24, 1980 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala against the two partners of M/s. Sachdeva Enterprises, one Raj Shetty and respondent Nohar Chand Gupta, the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser under S. 13-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with S. 13(1)(a) of the Feritilisers Control Order, 1957. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge against all the accused for the aforementioned offence. On July 20, 1981 respondent Nohar Chand moved an application before the learned Magistrate praying that he be discharged and the proceedings be dropped against him on the ground that the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala had no territorial jurisdiction to try him because he carried on business of manufacture of fertilisers at Ludhiana. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Agro-Chemicals, 1980 Cri LJ 516, discharged the respondent and dropped the proceedings against him. The State of Punjab preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 48 of 1981 in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala who by his judgment and order dated February 13, 1982 set aside the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate holding that in view of the provisions contained in S. 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala had jurisdiction to try the respondent along with the other co-accused. Thereupon the respondent preferred a revision petition being Criminal Misc. No. 1473-M of 1982 in the High court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned single Judge of the High Court held that in view of the decision in Satinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 1158-M of 1981 dated 24-2-1982 : (reported in 1982 Chand Cri C 225) which accepted the view taken by the Gujarat High Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in interfering with the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala had no jurisdiction to try Nohar Chand, the manufacturer. Accordingly the revision application was allowed and the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was set aside and the one by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was restored. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(2.) The allegation against the respondent was that he manufactured sub-standard fertiliser and through his marketing agents M/s. Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapurthala marketed the same. The offence was disclosed when the Fertiliser Inspector took a sample of the sub-standard fertiliser from the marketing agents at Kapurthala. It is an admitted position that the respondent who is the manufacturer carries on his business of manufacturing fertilisers at Ludhiana. The question posed is : whether the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala where the marketing agents of sub-standard fertiliser manufactured by the respondent marketed the same, will have jurisdiction to try the respondent, the manufacturer of the sub-standard fertiliser along with the marketing agents.
(3.) The learned single Judge of the High Court following the decision in Satinder Singh's case held that the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser cannot be tried where the commodity was being marketed. The view taken by the High Court with respect is wholly untenable in law. But before examining the legal position subsequent development of law in the same High Court on this very point may be noticed.;