The complaint under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was not maintainable against the petitioner, as the Managing Director of the company, without naming the manufacturing company as a co-accused.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. Petitioner Yogpal Malik who is a Managing Director of M/s. Natraj Organics Limited has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint dated November 11, 1998 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Karnal under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. A copy of the aforesaid complaint has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition.

2. As per the averments made in the complaint, on September 30, 1997, a sample of fertilizer was drawn by a Fertilizer Inspector from the premises of M/s. Luxmi Fertilizer, Sankra Road, Taraori, District karnal. The aforesaid firm was a dealer of the fertilizer manufactured by the manufacturer M/s. Natraj Organics Limited. Upon analysis of the same by the testing laboratory, the fertilizer was found to be sub-standard. A show cause notice was issued to the company about the failure of the sample and reply was sent by the company. Ultimately, the complaint was filed on November 11, 1998 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Karnal against the dealer firm, distributor as well as the petitioner Yogpal Malik, the Managing Director of the Company.

3. The main ground upon which the complaint and subsequent proceedings have been challenged by the petitioner and are sought to be quashed is that while filing the complaint, the manufacturing Company namely M/s. Natraj Organics Limited was not arrayed as a co-accused. On that basis it is submitted that the complaint under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with the Fertilizer Control Order itself was not maintainable.

4. Sh. Dinesh Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the absence of the company as a co-accused, the complaint against the present petitioner Yogpal Malik, who was the Managing Director of the Company was not maintainable and to support the aforesaid submission he has relied upon S.H. Chisty v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent C.R. 565, Suresh Chand Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent Criminal Cases 696 and a judgment of this Court in N.K. Kakkar and others v. State of Punjab, (Crl. Misc. No. 10011-M of 1997) decided on August 1, 2002.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the submissions made by Sh. Dinesh Goyal have merit and deserve to succeed.

6. I have perused the complaint and find that the company-M/s. Natraj Organics Limited was not arrayed as a co-accused and, therefore, in the absence of the aforesaid company, the complaint could not be filed against Yogpal Malik, who was merely a Managing Director of the Company. My view finds full support by the judgments in the case of S.H. Chisty v. State of Haryana (supra), N.K. Kakkars case (supra) and Suresh Chand Sharmas case (supra).

7. In the result, the present petition is allowed and the complaint Annexure P-1 and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner are hereby quashed.

8. It is made clear that quashing of the complaint against the present petitioner Yogpal Malik would have absolutely no bearing or effect upon the continuation thereof, against the remaining accused. Since the matter has remained pending in this Court for sufficiently long time, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than December 31, 2002. Petition allowed.