S RAJASEKAR Vs. S THIRUGNANA SAMBANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused 2 to 4 is S.T.C. 1148/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Wallajahpet, accused 1 to 3 in C.C. 883/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Melur and accused 1 and 2 in C.C. 1100/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Erode, have filed these petitions respectively under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same.

(2.) Short facts are : In S.T.C. 1148/90, the first respondent has filed the complaint against four accused for offences punishable under Sections 29(1) read with 3(k)(i) and 33(1) of the Insecticides Act. The relevant allegations in it are briefly as follows :- A. 1 is the retail dealer of pesticides. A. 2 is the State Distributor for M/s. Bayer India Limited and A. 3 and A. 4 are incharge of the business as Regional Sales Technical Manager and Manager formulation for production in a Registered Manufacturer of insecticides under the Act. They are doing business under the name and style of M/ s. Bayer India Limited. The sample of the said insecticide in 100 ml. packing was taken from A. 1 shop in his presence, in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. On analysis, it was found to be misbranded. A. 1 was intimated of the report of the analyst by letter dated 5-5-1988. A. 2 to A. 4 were intimated by letter dated 16-5-1988 and 16-12-1988 respectively. A. 2 had supplied the said insecticide to A. 1 shop. A. 3 and A. 4 have manufactured that product. Hence all of them are liable to be punished.

(3.) In C. C. No. 883 of 1990, the respondent has filed a complaint against four accused. The petitioners are A.1 to A.3. They are being proceeded with for violation of S. 3(k)(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 on the allegation that A.1 is the firm which manufactured and distributed the misbranded insecticide and A.2 and A.3 are the Chairman and Chief Lab Chemist of A.l and A.4 is the Dealer who possessed and sold the insecticides.