G V DEVASAHYAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of the present petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1, as well as subsequent proceedings on the same.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint, Annexure P-1, under Ss. 29-(1) and 17(1) (a) of Insecticides Act, 1969 (for short hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") was filed by the State of Haryana through Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kurukshetra (by name) against the dealer, distributor and manufacturer of insecticide 'Isoproturon'. The allegations were that on 6-1-1988, the Assistant Plant Protection Officer had drawn a sample of 'Isoproturon 75% having batch No. 71206 from the shop of the firm and the same was sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal on 8-1-1988 who, vide his report No. 650, copy Annexure P-2, declared the sample as misbranded. A copy of the report, Annexure P-2, was received in the office of the complainant on 30-11-1988. A copy of the analysis report was also sent to the firm M/s. Mohinder Pal Surjit Pal, Pipli i.e. the dealer under S. 24(2) of the Act. The manufacturer was also intimated likewise of the report of analysis. On an objection raised by the manufacturer about the batch no. of the material, a fresh report was obtained from Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal and corrigendum was thereafter issued, and corrected report was received in the office of complainant on 21-3-1988. Information again was sent to the dealer and manufacturer of the same. The dealer moved an application, under S. 24(4) of the Act for sending another sample for analysis to Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. Thereafter, the same was re-analysed which was again declared to be misbranded and accordingly prosecution was lodged by way of complaint, Annexure P-1, after obtaining requisite sanction, copy Annexure P-4.

(3.) The present petition has been filed by one G. V. Devasahayam, Director of Company Coromandal Indag India Pvt. Limited. It has been urged that the report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad dated 8-9-1988, Annexure P-3, absolves all the accused of any liability since the report mentioned that "the same is unsatisfactory in Alkalinity and suspensibility test requirements as per specification." This report did not contain any remark as misbranded but the Senior Scientific Officer who signed the report wrote the word 'misbranded' by his hand. The analysis report, otherwise, was found to be up to mark as far as active ingredients were concerned. Consequently, the report of the Central Insecticide laboratory, Faridabad was prepared on 8-9-1988 whereas the complainant obtained the sanction to prosecute the accused in the month of July, 1988 i.e. prior to the receipt of final report from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It is urged that in case the sanctioning authority had gone through the final report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, there was hardly any chance of permitting a meaningless prosecution, in view of the fact that active ingredients of an insecticide were not deficient. It is also claimed that sanctioning order lacks application of mind. Sanction for prosecution has been accorded to prosecute Shri Parveen Grover, Regional Manager, Delhi of the Manufacturer but without disclosing as to in what manner, Shri Parveen Grover was liable to be prosecuted and strange enough, Parveen Grover has not been made an accused and instead the present petitioner-G V. Devasahyam, Director of the Company has been impleaded as accused person without disclosing as to in what manner he has any concern with the manufacturing process of the insecticide. It has not been mentioned that he is incharge of the company or is otherwise responsible for the affairs of the company. The petitioner cannot be prosecuted without prosecuting the company itself, which is alleged to have manufactured the insecticide. Besides, the case is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate since 27-4-1994 without any progress till the date of filing of the present petition which amounts to misuse of the process of the court when the complainant is not producing any evidence against the petitioner.