ANAND FREDRICK Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the criminal complaint No.233 dated 16.12.2008 under Section 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, 33 and 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 ('Act' for short) and Rules, 1971 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-3).

(2.) The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-1) reads as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not responsible for quality control. Petitioner was the Director of the company and had resigned with effect from 28.6.2005 whereas the sample was drawn on 2.9.2005. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was the responsible person and official of the company and hence, he was liable to be prosecuted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-