PAUSHAK LTD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner who is the third accused in C.C. No.216/89 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Addanki. The case is filed under the Insecticides Act for mis-branding some insecticide. In the cause title the third accused is shown as M/s. Paushak Ltd., Vadodara, Gujarat, represented by its Manager and Chief Chemist Satyaprakash Gupta, Penelov Factory, Penelov (Post), Halal Taluk, Baroda District, Gujarat State. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief Chemist is not responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company and that the prosecution should have been filed against the company represented by its Managing Director.

(2.) Section 33(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, says that whenever an offence under the Act has been committed by a Company, every person who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company as well as the Company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall also be liable to proceed against and punished accordingly. As I have pointed out above, the third accused is the Company represented by its Manager and Chief Chemist. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to two orders of my learned brother Bhaskar Rao, J., in Crl. P. 1189/88 and Crl. P. 851/89 in which the proceedings against the Chemists were quashed on the ground that there were no allegations in the complaint to show that they were in charge of or were responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. With great respect to my learned brother, 1 am unable to follow the said decisions. What Sec. 33 (1) says is that every person who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company as well as the Company shall he deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. If the evidence on record esta lishes that a particular person was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, he can be made punishable. If on the other hand, the evidence does not show that he is responsible for the business of the Company even though there is an allegation to that effect in the Complaint, he cannot be made liable. Therefore, it is for the prosecution to establish whether the Chief Chemist is res- posible to the Company for the conduct of its business and it is a matter to be decided after the evidence is adduced as to who is in charge of the conduct of the business of the Company.

(3.) Another contention is that two tests have been conducted one by the State Laboratory and another by Central Laboratory and there is difference between the two tests. Therefore, the reports cannot be accepted. That is also a matter to be urged before the trial court after placing on record the two reports. It is not possible in this petition to investigate into those questions of fact which have to be proved on evidence.