ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the complaint Annexure P-1 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed against the petitioner Annexure P-1 for having contravening Clause 19(i)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and in pursuance to the complaint the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 12.5.2000. The petitioner filed a petition i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 21609-M of 1996 for quashing the complaint as well as the summoning order. The complaint as well as the summoning order were quashed vide order dated 3.12.1996 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar in Crl. Misc. No. 21609-M of 1996. The complaint as well as the summoning order were quashed primarily on the basis of a judgment passed in CWP No. 5643 of 1996 titled as Tarsem Singh v. Union of India and others. The Judgment in Tarsem Singh's case (supra) was set aside in LPA No. 1039 of 1996. As the LPA Bench set aside the order in Tarsem Singh's case (supra), therefore, the petitioners have now again been summoned by the Special Judge, Panipat, vide order dated 12.5.2000. Counsel for the petitioners contended that although the judgment rendered in Tarsem Singh's case (supra) has been set aside by the LPA Bench but the orders passed in the petitioners' case i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 21609-M of 1996 still stand and the same have not been challenged by the State and, therefore, it is contended that merely because the judgment on the basis of which the complaint Annexure P-1 was quashed by this Court would not automatically revive the complaint in the present case.
(3.) MR . Pattar, learned Sr. DAG, Haryana, however, submits that as the judgment rendered in Crl. Misc. No. 21609-M of 1996 was passed in Tarsem Singh's case (supra), therefore, all other cases which have been decided on the basis of Tarsem Singh's case (supra) would also automatically get revived.;