IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.2 of 2005 Date of decision: 27-08-2009 Mohit Modi Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1?. For the appellant: Mr.Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. For the respondent No.1 & 2: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. . V.K.Ahuja, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Court below summoning the petitioner on 22.9.2004. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 16(1)a(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1958 was filed by the Food Inspector against one Khazan Singh and Anil Kumar Dogra. The sample of country liquor was purchased by the complainant from the respondents. A notice of accusation was also put up against the respondent. As per the order dated 17.6.2002, during trial of the case, an application under Section 20-A was filed by the accused for impleading the directors of the Company. The statement of AW-1 Khajan Singh was recorded by the Court below who stated in cross-examination that one Mohit Modi and Sanjay Gupta are the directors of the aforesaid firm and accordingly, the summoning order was issued as against Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? the petitioner and against this order, the present petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no sufficient material on record before the Court below to hold that the petitioner was a director of the said Company. It was submitted that it is only the statement in cross- examination of a witness that this fact has come up, therefore, the order passed summoning the petitioner merely on the basis of the statement in the cross examination of a witness, is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a photocopy of the return submitted with the Registrar of Companies in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner is no more a director of the Company for the past many years. This document can only be placed before the learned trial Court and the petitioner is at liberty to place the documents before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge/accusations and this question shall be considered by the trial Court as to whether the order summoning the petitioner is maintainable or not or accusation needs to be put up against the petitioner or not. The petitioner is at liberty to file the documents before the trial Court and can pray about the summoning order issued against him. No order on this petition can be passed by the Court at this stage. The petitioner may file the documents before the trial Court who shall consider the same and pass appropriate order. In view of above discussion, the petition is dismissed. 27th August, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)