IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO. No. 93 of 2011. Date of Decision:30.6.2011. _______________________________________________ Murari Lal Arora. ….Appellant. Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent. Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner challenging the order Annexure:P4 on the ground that this Court in Cr.MMO.No. 68 of 2008 had quashed proceeding so far as the petitioner-Murari Lal Arora is concerned. This Court had directed: “Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, it can logically be concluded that the summoning of the petitioner as an accused is wrong and illegal, hence it is quashed and set-aside, however, the complaint shall survive against the Company through its Managing Director or Joint Director, who would admittedly be incharge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business by virtue of their office. However, this order shall not derogate the powers of the trial court to hold an inquiry if so warranted to find out as Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment. Yes. to who others were the persons incharge of or responsible to the business of the company at the relevant time for impleading them as an accused. The petition stands disposed of. Send down the record.” A reading of this order makes it clear that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the complaint was quashed and set aside but it survives against the Company through its Managing Director or Joint Director who would admittedly be Incharge of the Company and responsible for its business. The petitioner is one of the Directors in the Company. The case pleaded was that he is not Incharge of the business and therefore cannot be prosecuted under the Act. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to page-66 of the petition which is Form-26 under Rules 73 and 83 of The Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940, six persons have been made Incharge of the Company for manufacturing etc. An order has been passed by this Court that the petitioner cannot be tried for the offences. However, that does not preclude the Court from ascertaining from the petitioner herein to disclose as to who was the person responsible. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with direction: (a) That the judgment dated 20th April,2010 will be strictly complied with in letter and spirit. So far as the petitioner-Murari Lal Arora is concerned, he will not be prosecuted. A direction is issued that this person shall appear before the Court and disclose the name of the person in terms of the concluding portion of the judgment as to who was the Incharge of the business etc. (b) Let notice be also issued to all the persons named in form-26 at page-66 of this petition and the Court shall ascertain as to who was responsible for the affairs of the Company. Petition stands disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 30, 2011(R)