INSECTICIDES INSPECTOR ANANTHAPUR Vs. S SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur in Criminal Appeal 124 of 1979 acquitting the two respondents herein who were convicted by the trial court under S. 29(1)(a) read with S. 33 read with S. 3(k)(i) of the Insecticides Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 each; in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows : Before the trial court the two respondents herein (A-3 and A-4) and other two persons (A-1 and A-2) were tried for the aforesaid offences. A-1 was the Sales Agent of Insecticides and A-2 was the Distributor of pesticides manufactured by M/s. Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Company Limited, Alwaye-4, Kerala State, of which the respondents herein (A-3 and A-4) are the Managing Directors. The Insecticides Inspector visited the shop of A-1 and found that A-1 had no licence for selling pesticides. At that time A-1 was present in the shop transacting business. The Inspector P.W.1, took samples as per Form No. 12, weighing 450 grams of Fytolan on paying its price of Rs. 73-40, and obtained receipt from A-1. He opened the sample in the presence of the accused as well as other respectable persons. He divided it into different parts, packed, sealed and labelled them. One of such sealed samples was given to A-1 under acknowledgment. A Mehzar of this proceeding also was prepared i.e., Ex. P-2. One of the samples was sent to the Insecticides Analyst, Hyderabad who gave his report Ex. P-12 stating that the sample was misbranded. The report of the Analyst was served on A-1, and the remaining stock of Fytolan was seized from his shop. Directions were given to the accused to stop sale and also to the Manufacturers. A-2 who was admittedly, a distributor was also directed to surrender his stocks and they were seized. Since the company was manufacturing misbranded insecticide Fytolan, they were also rendered liable for prosecution. After obtaining necessary sanction under S. 31, P.W.1 filed the complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadepatri. The prosecution examined P.W.1 and also got marked Exs.P-1 to P-26. On behalf of defence, any one witness was examined. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence of P.W.1 as well as other documents particularly the report of the Analyst, came to the conclusion that the pesticides that were being sold were misbranded. Therefore, the accused are liable for the offences with which they are charged. He accordingly convicted them. The learned Magistrate sentenced A-1 to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days A-2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. A-1 and A-4 were found guilty of the offences punishable under S. 29(1)(a) read with S. 33 read with S. (3)(k)(1) of the Insecticides Act, and each of them were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default to suffer three months simple imprisonment. A-1 and A-2 did not prefer any appeal A-3 and A-4 have filed the criminal appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted them on the ground that the sanction under S. 31 was only given to prosecute M/s. Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Company Limited. Always-4, Kerala State, and not to its employees and Managing Directors as such. Therefore, A-3 and A-4 cannot be prosecuted in their individual capacity. In arriving at such a conclusion the learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly referred to S. 33(2) which provides for prosecution of persons who are connected with or connived in offence being committed by a Company. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting these two accused is questioned in this appeal by the State.

(3.) Sri. Y. Bhaskar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the lower appellate court has failed to see that it is the Company represented by A-3 and A-4 that is prosecuted. Even assuming the conviction of A-3 and A-4 individually is erroneous it could have corrected the same by making the Company liable; and acquittal of A-3 and A-4 completely by referring to S. 33(2) is erroneous.