Magistrate Not Required To Record Statement Of Public Servant Who Filed Complaint Before Summoning Accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate is not required to record statement of a public servant who filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty before issuing summons to the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction.

In this case, the Inspecting Officer filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate,  against a company, its managing director and others alleging offence of 'misbranding' under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33, 29 of the Insecticides Act.  One of the contentions raised by the appellant-accused was that the the Magistrate has taken cognizance without conducting inquiry and ordering investigation and thus not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In this regard, the bench referred to proviso of Section 200 CrPC which states that while taking cognizance, Magistrate need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duties.

"With regard to the procedure contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same is to be viewed, keeping in mind that the complainant is a public servant who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. The legislature in its wisdom has itself placed the public servant on a different pedestal, as would be evident from a perusal of proviso to Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Object of holding an inquiry / investigation before taking cognizance, in cases where accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of such Magistrate, is to ensure that innocents are not harassed unnecessarily. By virtue of proviso to Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. Further, by virtue of Section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure, report of the Government Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence. The Code of Criminal Procedure itself provides for exemption from examination of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant.", the court observed.

The bench said that n absence of showing any prejudice caused to the accused at this stage, the same is no ground to quash the proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Another contention raised in this case was that the complaint against Managing Director is not maintainable. In this regard, the bench noted Section 33 of the Act which provides that only responsible person of the Company, as well as the Company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against.

"Though, the Managing Director is overall incharge of the affairs of the company, whether such officer is to be prosecuted or not, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the relevant provisions of law. Having regard to specific provision under Section 33 of the Act, and the undertaking filed in the present case, respondent cannot prosecute the 2nd Appellant herein. Thus, we find force in the contention of Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, that allowing the prosecution against 2nd Appellant – Managing Director is nothing but, abuse of the process of law.", the court said. The bench, however, refused to quash the proceedings against the Company.

The court, however, quashed criminal proceedings in another complaint lodged against the Company by allowing a connected appeal. It observed that the complaint filed is barred by limitation.

Case: Cheminova India Limited vs. State of Punjab ; CrA 750 OF 2021 
Coram: Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy
Counsel: Sr. Adv Sidharth Luthra, Adv Jaspreet Gogia
Citation: LL 2021 SC 355

Click here to Read/Download Judgment