IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO.No. 17 of 2011. Date of Decision:21.7.2011. _______________________________________________ Devyani Food Industries Private Ltd. ….Appellant. Versus. State of H.P. and others. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the appellants :Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate vice Ms.Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-State. : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu rejecting the application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. instituted on behalf of the petitioner herein praying for discharge. The case has been disposed of by the learned Court on the ground that it is not a warrant case since the offences with which the petitioner is charged are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years, therefore, the procedure for trial of summons case is applicable. 2. The main point urged on behalf of the petitioner herein is that it had a valid nominee appointed to look after the affairs of the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment yes. 2 Company who would be responsible for offences etc. under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the nomination sent by the petitioner herein in Form-VIII, Rule 12-B under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to the Local Health Authority, Solan (Annexure:P-3). It is dated 14.3.2008. But what I find from reading this document is that it is acknowledged to have been received by the Health Authority on 22.8.2008 whereas the allegation in the complaint is that the offence was purportedly committed on 27.3.2008. A copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors Annexure:P-4, has also been filed along with this nomination. 3. I am not expressing any conclusive opinion on this aspect as to whether the nomination is valid or not and that the petitioner can be discharged since that will be a matter to be determined after evidence is recorded by the learned trial Court. The Company is being sued through its Managing Director Sh. Madusudan Parkh. The apprehension of the petitioner herein is that he will be asked to attend the trial on each and every date of hearing. 4. Adverting to the first submission, it will be open to the petitioner to establish by evidence that there was a valid nomination on the date when the purported offence is alleged to have been committed. This shall be taken as a preliminary point by the learned trial Court as it goes to the root of the case because later on if it is found that there has been a valid nomination, no conviction can follow, putting the clock back by a number of years. . So far as the question of attending the court on every date of hearing is concerned, the learned trial Court shall ensure that the presence of 3 the petitioner is called for only on those dates on which it is absolutely essential/required in accordance with law and not as a routine to be summoned on every date. The petition is disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 21,2011(R)