Summoning process need not be a speaking order when the complaint shows sufficient grounds and company officers are specifically implicated.

At the stage of issuing process, a Magistrate need only ascertain whether the complaint discloses sufficient ground for proceeding; detailed reasons or a fully speaking order are not required, so quashing summons on that basis was unsustainable. In a prosecution involving offences by a company, specific averments that the directors and manager were responsible for the company's business and for the discharge of polluted effluents were sufficient to summon them at the outset. Lapse of time did not by itself justify quashing the proceedings, though expeditious disposal was warranted. The impugned orders were set aside and the criminal case was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate must record reasons or pass a speaking order while issuing process under the criminal procedure law. (ii) Whether the complaint contained sufficient allegations to proceed against the company's directors and manager, and whether the lapse of time justified quashing the prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate must record reasons or pass a speaking order while issuing process under the criminal procedure law.

Analysis: At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is only required to see whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding on the complaint. Detailed reasons are not legally required for the issuance of summons, and the order need not resemble a fully reasoned judgment. The insistence on a speaking order at that stage was therefore erroneous.

Conclusion: A speaking order was not necessary while issuing process, and the quashing of summons on that ground was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint contained sufficient allegations to proceed against the company's directors and manager, and whether the lapse of time justified quashing the prosecution.

Analysis: The complaint specifically alleged that the company's directors and manager were responsible for the discharge of polluted effluents and for the conduct of the company's business, bringing the case within the statutory rule of liability for offences by companies. At the summoning stage, such averments were enough to proceed against them. The long lapse of time was not treated as a ground to absolve the accused from trial, though it called for expeditious disposal.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the directors and manager could proceed, and the delay did not justify quashing the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the criminal case was directed to proceed in accordance with law with expedition.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate need only ascertain whether the complaint discloses sufficient grounds to proceed, and in prosecutions for offences by a company, specific averments of responsibility or connivance are enough to summon directors and managers.

---