KISHANCHAND ASSANAND GURSAHANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint dated 19-3-1997, under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder, copy Annexure P-Z, the summoning order dated 19-3-1997, copy Annexure P-5 and the subsequent proceedings taken threon and pending the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.

(2.) Annexure P-2 is the copy of the criminal complaint filed by the State through the Insecticide Inspector against various accused, including accused-petitioner Kishan Chand Assanand Gursahani (who is accused No. 4 in the said complaint). In the complaint, it was alleged that the Insecticide in question which was found to be misbranded, was manufactured by M/s. Konkan Pesticides of which accused-petitioner Kishan Chand Assanand Gursahani was a Director. It was further alleged that accused-petitioner Kishan Chand Assanand Gursahani, was the Director and the person responsible for the conduct of the business of manufacturing firm M/s. Konkan Pesticides by marketing, selling and distributing the misbranded pesticides as well as the accused Dr. Purushottam Pandurang Dalvi, Quality Control (accused No. 5), on whose neglect the misbranded insecticide was manufactured, sold and distributed as well as the firm M/s. Konkan Pesticides Ltd. had committed the offence punishable under Section 29(1)(a) read with Section 3(k)(i), 17 and 18 of the Insecticides Act and were liable for action under Section 33 of the said Act.

(3.) It has been submitted before me by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that under Section 33(1) of the said Act only those persons, who at the time when the offence was committed were incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to proceeded against and punished, whenever an offence under the said Act has been committed by a company. It has further been submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation against the accused-petitioner in this regard. It has further been submitted that under Section 33(2) of the said Act, a Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly, if it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on their part. It has further been submitted that in the present case. No such allegation has been levelled against the accused-petitioner and as such the criminal complaint, the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon against the accused-petitioner are liable to be quashed.