Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned order dated 14.9.2000 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, No. 1, Bhilwara in criminal revision no. 19/96 whereby the revision has been rejected and the order dated 11.1.1996 passed by the Seamed Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur in criminal regular case no. 1066/92 of taking cognizance has been upheld.
(2.) The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Deepak Sarkar is an officer of Rajasthan Cooperative Service and has been working as General Manager of Gangapur Cooperative Spinning Mills which is now renamed as Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Limited, (Spinning Unit), Gangapur since 29.7.2000. The said mill, during the period 2.12.1991 to 24,12.1991, purchased 5603 bales of cotton and brought them within the limits of Municipal Board, Gangapur without paying necessary octroi thereon. So, the Municipal Board filed a complaint against the Mill through its Administrator-cum-Collector, General Manager and Purchase Officer in the Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur for the offence under Sections 132 and 251 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter for short called the Act) read with RR. 6, 8, 9 and 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962. it appears that on an application being filed on behalf of the Administrator-cum-District Collector and the Purchase Officer, the proceedings against them were dropped, but the plea of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings on the ground of want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was turned down and the cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 11.1.1996. Revision filed against the said order was also dismissed. Hence, this petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has taken charge of the office of the General Manager of the petitioner Society only on 29.7.2000 whereas the offences alleged to have been committed in the year 1991 and criminal proceedings can belonged and initiated only against persons who committed them and not against the posts. He has also contended that the learned courts below have wrongly rejected the application under Section 197 Cr.RC. filed on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, to allow these proceedings to continue against him tantamounts to abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the same should be dropped in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.RC.
(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have strongly supported the orders of the learned courts below. They have strenuously argued that the complaint has been filed against the Mill through its Administrator-cum-District Collector, General Manager and Purchase Officer. They have contended that the service of summons on judicial person such as a Corporation or an incorporated Company or other body corporate or a registered society can be effected through its Secretary, Local manager or other Principal Officer and the' petitioner being the General Manager of the aforesaid Mill, the summons of the said Mill is being sought to be served through him and no proceedings are being taken against him in his personal capacity or as an officer of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Service. They have also, on the strength of an authority in the case of Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1998 SC 1945 , argued that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.RC. is required to be taken in this case.;