VYAPAK PURI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 1360-M of 1990 and 1362-M of 1990 since the same law point is involved therein.

(2.) VYAPAK Puri, petitioner seeks the quashing of the complaint instituted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for offences under Sections 17, 18, 3(k)(i) and 33 of the Insecticide Act and the subsequent proceedings. The facts are being drawn from the complaint covered by Cr. M. 1360-M of 1990. According to the facts stated in the impugned complaint, Annexure P-1, Surjit Singh, Insecticide-Inspector, Abohar, on 16-7-1987, visited the shop of Rameshwar of M/s Goyal Traders Abohar who is authorised dealer of M/s. Kisan Agro Chemicals Unit of M/s. Puri Agro Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Muzaffarnagar (U.P.). In presence of Rameshwar, a sample of Aldrin 30% EC of batch No. 405, manufactured by Kisan Agro Chemicals was drawn. It was divided into three parts and seizure memo was prepared. It was put into polythene bags separately. The dealer, when asked, refused to affix his own seal. One of the samples was handed over to him. One sample was sent to Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. After analysis thereof, it was found that the sample did not conform to ISI Specification and contained only 15.03% active ingredient contents instead of 30% and was, thus, misbranded under Section 3(k)(i) of the Act. A copy of the analysis report was delivered to the dealer, vide a copy of the letter. This misbranded insecticide was supplied by M/s. Puri Brothers, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and the offence had been committed by the dealer, the supplier and the manufacturer. Vyapak Puri was impleaded as an accused, being a partner of M/s. Kisan Agro Chemicals Unit of M/s. Puri Agro Chemical Pvt Ltd., Muzaffarnagar.

(3.) IN order to make the petitioner liable, it has to be alleged that when the offence was committed by the Company, he was incharge or responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. On this short ground, the petitioner is entitled to get the impugned proceedings quashed. I hereby allow both the aforementioned criminal miscellaneous and quash both the impugned complaints qua the petitioner. Order accordingly.