In case of Cheminova India Limited vs. State of Punjab Supreme Court held that before summoning the accused, the magistrate is not required to record the public servant's statement that he had filed the complaint.
The Inspecting Officer in this instance case filed a complaint with the Judicial Magistrate alleging violations of Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33, and 29 of the Insecticides Act against a corporation, its Managing Director, and others. One of the arguments put forth by the appellant-accused was that the Magistrate did not follow the process outlined in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by taking cognizance without first ordering an investigation and conducting an inquiry.
The bench cited the provision of Section 200 CrPC, which stipulates that the Magistrate is not required to record the statement of a public worker who filed the complaint in the course of his official responsibilities when taking cognizance. The bench ruled that, absent evidence of any harm already done to the accused, there is no reason to halt the case under the authority of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The complaint against the managing director was not maintainable, according to another argument made in this case. In this regard, the bench took note of Section 33 of the Act, which states that only the Company alone, as well as its responsible person, shall be held to have committed the offense and be subject to legal action.
However, by admitting a related appeal, the court invalidated criminal proceedings in connection with another allegation made against the Company. It noted that the complaint submitted is time-barred and the court held that "With regard to the procedure contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same is to be viewed, keeping in mind that the complainant is a public servant who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. The legislature in its wisdom has itself placed the public servant on a different pedestal, as would be evident from a perusal of proviso to Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Object of holding an inquiry / investigation before taking cognizance, in cases where the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of such Magistrate, is to ensure that innocents are not harassed unnecessarily. By virtue of provision to Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record a statement of such a public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. Further, by virtue of Section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the report of the Government Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence. The Code of Criminal Procedure itself provides for exemption from examination of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant."