Sailesh Venkatesan vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 902 Cal

06   28.02.2022                            CRR 558 of 2022
NB
     Ct. No. 39   In the matter of:- Sailesh Venkatesan                    ...petitioner


                                   Mr. Sudipta Sarkar,
                                   Mr. S. Basu,,
                                   Mr. S. Prasad.
                                                 ....for the petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits as follows. The petitioner is a former director of a company.

Without making the company an accused in a case under Sections 269,

270, 272 and 273 read with Section 114 of the Penal Code, the petitioner

and some others were arraigned as accused in the present case. By an

order dated 10.09.2021 passed by this Court in CRR 1767 of 2021, the

impugned proceeding was stayed. The order of stay was extended from

time to time. Even during pendency of the stay, a learned Magistrate was

pleased to take cognizance of the alleged offences and issue warrant of

arrest against the petitioner. By an order dated 29.12.2021, the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas expressed his inability to

recall an order taking cognizance. However, he did recall the warrant of

arrest issued against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that no

report in terms of Section 46(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act,

2006 was filed before the prosecution could be launched. Reliance is also

placed on a judgment in M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2010 SCC Online ALL 1708 and in

the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah Vs. C.C. Jani & Anr. reported in

(2009) 15 SCC 64.

The petitioner is directed serve a copy of this application upon the

State through the learned Public Prosecutor, within a week and file an

affidavit of service to that effect on the next date of hearing.

Let this matter appear as a 'Contested Application' three weeks

hence.

The impugned proceeding shall remain stayed for a period of six

weeks from this date.

The parties shall be at liberty to pray for extension or modification

or vacating of the interim order upon notice to the other side.

The State shall produce the case diary on the next date.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to

the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)