Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Mar 11: High Court has observed that multiple complaints by the same complainant against same accused or set of accused persons with respect to same offence, involving cognizable or private complaint offences, will lead to abuse of process of law and quashed the complaint as also the cognizance taken by the trial court to the complaint.
The petitioners challenged the complaint filed by the Department of Agriculture Law Enforcement Inspector (Fertilizer)and cognizance order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, (Munisff), Chadoora, Budgam on the ground that respondent had filed a similar complaint with respect to same batch of vermin-compost manufactured and distributed by same Company i.e, M/S Agro Care Organic Farm Private Limited, pending disposal in the court of Judge Small Causes, Srinagar and a person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence and two trials pertaining to same occurrence and offence is not permissible under law.
Their case set up by Advocate Areeb Javed is that they are employees of M/S Agro Care Organic Farm Private Limited Company involved in manufacturing of fertilizers, including Bio Fertilizers such as Vermi-compost (soil food). They sent an intimation to the respondents for taking samples of Vermi-compost from Batch No. AOF/105 received on 28.02.2016.
Their allegation is that the respondent did not take the sample for analysis in accordance with the procedure provided by Fertilizers Control Order, 1985 and seized the fertilizer from godowns of the Company located at Nowgam Bypass, Srinagar alleging that same was not according to the specifications of FCO of 1985.
Consequently, the complaint came to be filed by the respondents against the petitioners under Clause 19(a) of the FCO, 1985 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and impugned cognizance was taken by trial court.
They have also assailed the impugned complaint and the impugned order of cognizance of trial court on the ground that in the absence of the company being an accused in the complaint, they cannot be prosecuted and held liable in their individual capacity in terms of Section 10 of EC Act.
According to them, they cannot be held responsible for the acts of the company as there is nothing in the complaint to show that they were in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.
Court underlined that as per the complaint, respondent-complainant served a show cause notice to the said accused company and a bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that there is nothing to suggest the petitioners/accused persons, at any point of time, were responsible for the acts committed on behalf of the Company.
“There is nothing to indicate that petitioners are responsible for the business of the company. No doubt, the company being a corporate entity performs its functions through its officers including Chairman, Managing Director, Directors etc. However, it is trite position of criminal jurisprudence that no vicarious liability can be attached to said officers unless statute specifically provides so”, Justice Rajesh Sekhri said.
“Multiple complaints by the same complainant against same accused or set of accused persons with respect to the same offence, involving cognizable or private complaint offences, will lead to abuse of process of law and takes away fundamental right to life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, the present petition is allowed and the impugned complaint as also impugned order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the trial court are quashed and consequently, the petitioners are discharged”, court concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel