(1.) PETITIONERS, three in number,are A-1 to A-3 in C. C. No. 53 of 1991 pending on the file of of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tiruttani. They are being prosecuted along with two others, arrayed as A-4 and A-5, for having allegedly violated Sec. 3 (k) (i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 punishable under sec. 29 (1) (a) of the same Act, on a private complaint initiated by respondent, who is, Agricultural Officer (Plant Protection), Pallipet.
(2.) ALLEGATIONS in the complaint show that the first petitioner is the Chairman of the firm E. I. D. Parry (India) Limited, which had manufactured misbranded chemical Monocrotophos 36% SL which is involved in the process of manufacturing insecticides - vide Sec. 3 (k) (i) of the Act. The second petitioner has also been similarly described as the Chairman of E. I. D. Parry (India) Limited. The third petitioner has been shown in the complaint as the chemist of the firm E. I. D. Parry (India) Limited, who was responsible for the manufacture of quality insecticides. A-4 has been shown as the distributor who had supplied misbranded chemical manufactured by E. I. D. Parry (India) Limited, to the retail dealer. A-5 is the retail dealer concerned.
(3.) THE decision of the Supreme Court in Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of U. P. , A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 1824 was not placed for scrutiny in the latter case. On the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is apparent, that on the first ground, petitioners, cannot succeed. All that would ultimately be required is that before the person in charge or an officer of the company is held guilty in that capacity, it must be established that there has been a contravention of the order by the Company. First ground is rejected.