9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ironment Protection Act, 1986 (`the Act' for short) against M/s. QRG Central Hospital & Research Centre, a company incorporated under the Companies Act as accused No. 1, Qimat Rai Gupta, Anil Gupta, Ameet Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sanjeev Gupta and Vibha Gupta, as accused Nos. 2 to 7, respectively, being Directors of accused No. 1, besides Shalini Gupta and Sangeeta Gupta as Principal/Responsible officers of M/s. QRG Central Hospital & Research Centre, as accused Nos. 8 and 9. The learned court of competent jurisdiction issued the summoning order dated 25.4.2014 vide Annexure P- 7, however, only against accused Nos. 1 to 7. 3. During the pendency of the above-said complaint (Annexure P-5), impugned complaint bearing No. 158 of 2014 dated 3.9.2014 (Annexure P-1) came to be filed by the respondent-Board/complainant as an additional complaint. The learned court took cognizance of this additional complaint and issued the impugned summoning order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-3). In the additional complaint, the respondent complainant/ Board sought to make the petitioners as accused persons, not in the capacity as Directors or Principal/responsible officers of M/s. QRG Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother, (2014) 3 SCC 306 6. He prays for quashing the impugned additional complaint (Annexure P-1) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-3), by allowing all these three present petitions. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits that all these three petitions are misconceived and liable to be dismissed, because the same are based only on technicalities. He further submits that there was sufficient material available, on the basis of which additional complainant (Annexure P-1) was filed. He would next contend that once the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded about the right of the complainant, for summoning the present petitioners as additional accused, by moving an appropriate application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the additional complaint (Annexure P-1) was very much maintainable. He also defends the impugned summoning order, contending that the learned trial Judge did not exceed his jurisdiction, while passing the impugned summoning order. He submits that the petitioners were found involved in serious violations of the relevant provisions of the Act. He wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o that once the learned court has taken the cognizance of the original complaint, the complainant-Board ought to have waited till the appropriate stage and the present petitioners along with other accused persons, if any, could have been summoned to face the criminal trial as additional accused, by moving an appropriate application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 11. It is so said because the Code of Criminal Procedure no where provides filing of additional complaint, during the pendency of the trial of original complaint, on the same set of allegations, as has been done by the respondent-Board in the present case. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned additional complaint (Annexure P- 1) was not maintainable at the hands of the respondent-Board, in the present from and at this stage of the trial of original complaint (Annexure P-5). 12. In case, after re-examination of the matter, the respondent- Board was of the view that some additional accused were also involved in the commission of offence in question, it should have waited and taken recourse to the well known procedure of law provided under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by invoking the said provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Delhi High Court in S.Nagrajan's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:- "I find myself in agreement with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The cognizance of an offence can be taken only in terms of Section 190 of Cr.P.C. One of the modes for taking cognizance is on the basis of a complaint. It may be also pertinent here to mention that a cognizance of an offence can be taken only once, therefore, once the complainant is filed under the Act, in the instant case, being the first complaint against the three accused, namely Madan Lal f M/s. Popular Store, vender-cum-proprietor or M/s. P.K. Agency Supplier and National Diary Development Board, manufacturer, the second complaint was totally barred and accordingly the cognizance of the second complaint or the second offence in the second complaint against the new accused persons could not have been taken. The cognizance of the offence against the new accused persons in such an eventuality could be taken only during the course of trial in pursuance to Section 319 Cr.P.C. in case the evidence would have come up against them. 17. Although no direct jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
