SALIL SINGHAL Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SALIL Singhal, Managing Director, Pesticides India Limited and Pawan Kumar, Proprietor of 14/s. Nand Lal and Sons have come to this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing of the complaint titled as, Haryana State v. M/s. Naveen Beej Bhandar etc. for offences under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, Annexure P. 1.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the complaint Annexure P-11, on December 16, 1987, Mr. Baldev Amar, who exercises powers of Insecticides Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Naveen Beej Bhandar Panipat, a firm which is a licencee for stock and sale of insecticides. From that premises, he took a sample of Isoproturon 50 WP having 50% concentration. 'The Isoproturon was manufactured by a firm M/s. Pesticides India Limited and it was distributed by M/s. Nand Lal and Sons. The sample was divided into three portions and were properly sealed in the presence of Mohan Lal. One portion of the sample was given to the Proprietor of that firm. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control (insecticides) Laboratory, Karnal. On analysis, the same was found to be 37.9% Isoproturon instead of 50%. The insecticide was thus, misbranded. A show-cause notice and the analysis report was sent to M/s. Naveen Beej Bhandar, Panipat, and they submitted the reply, Annexure P5. With respect to the liability of the petitioners and M/s. Naveen Beej Bhandar, the following averments were made :-

(3.) THE complaint is significantly silent as to bow Salil Singhal is responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. If an offence is committed by a company then provisions of Section 33 of the Act have to be complied with There being no such allegations against Salil Singhal, his prosecution is bad in law. The continuation of the complaint in these circumstances, will amount to abuse of process of Court.