(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the aforementioned petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., under the Insecticides Act, 1968, as common questions of law are involved in all these cases. For the purpose of convenience, facts of the case, bearing Crl.M. No. 41917-M of 2001, may be noticed.
(2.) THE State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, Maur, filed a complaint under Sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), against M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, through its responsible person Badri Parsad (proprietor), being the dealer, M/s Recon Agrotech Limited, Giddarbaha, through its responsible person Manjit Singh Guliani (manufacturer), M/s Nagarjuna Agro and Steel Corporation, Giddarbaha, through its responsible person I.N. Sangra (Zonal Manager), M/s. Recon Agrotech Limited, Bangalore, through its responsible person Mr. Mukesh Kwatra (Customer Services Officer), being the marketing company and M/s Nagarjuna Agro and Steel Corporation, Vijaywara through its responsible person (i) Mr. I.N. Sangra (Zonal Manager) and (ii), Mr. P.S.V.R. Parsad (Production Executive), being the manufacturer of the insecticide in question. It was alleged in the complaint that the Insecticide Inspector had taken the sample of Monocrotophos 36% S.L. from M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, Maur Mandi, on 21.8.97, by selecting one pack of one litre out of 111 packs of one litre, bearing batch No. 97005, manufacturing date May, 1997, expiry date October, 1998, manufactured by M/s Nagarjuna Agro and Steel Corporation, Vijayawara, for the purpose of sampling, by taking 750 millilitres of Monocroptoplos 36% SL. (from the said one litre pack which was selected). It was alleged that the sample was taken in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules. It was alleged that one part of the sample was given to Badri Parsad, proprietor of M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, while the remaining two parts of the sample were deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda, who had sent one sealed sample in intact position to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Lab., Amritsar alongwith letter dated 22.8.1997. It was alleged that test report of the sample was received from the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Lab., Amritsar, declaring the sample as mis-branded, as it did not conform to the I.S. specifications in the active ingredient contents, inasmuch as the contends were found to be only 32.35% SL. instead of 36% SL. It was alleged that a copy of the analysis report was delivered to the dealer alongwith show cause notice. Similarly copy of the analysis report was also delivered to the distributor, marketer and manufacturing firm alongwith show cause notices. It was alleged that on the request of the dealer and the marketer, reference sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Testing Lab. Faridabad by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda, vide letter dated 12.11.1998, and the sample was again declared mis-branded, as active ingredients contents were found to be only 29.6% SL. instead of 36% SL, Monocrotophos and it did not conform to the I.S. specifications. It was alleged that full opportunity was given to the dealer, distributor, marketer and the manufacturing firm, before initiating legal action again them. It was alleged that they were under legal obligation to supply the insecticide products as per provisions of the Act and Rules. It was alleged that Badri Parsad, proprietor of M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, Maur Mandi, sold the product and thus had committed the above mentioned offences and it was alleged that Mr. M.S Guliani, Manager of M/s Recon Agrotech Ltd., Gidderbaha and I.N. Sangra Zonal Manager of M/s Nagarjuna Agro and Steel Corporation, Gidderbaha, had committed the aforesaid offences by selling, stocking and supplying for sale mis-branded insecticide. It was further alleged that Mukesh Kwatra, Customer Services Officer of M/s Recon Agro Tech. Ltd., Bangalore, had committed the offences by selling, stocking and supplying for sale mis-branded insecticides, while I.N. Sangra, Zonal Manager and P.S.V.R. Parasad, Production Executive of M/s Nagarjuna Agro and Steel Corporation, Vijayawara (being the responsible persons of manufacturer), had also committed the aforementioned offences by formulating and supplying for sale mis-branded insecticides. It was accordingly prayed that the aforesaid persons be summoned as accused and punished accordingly. After the filing of the criminal complaint, learned Magistrate ordered summoning of the accused. Aggrieved against the same the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh Guliani, seeking quashment of the aforesaid criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. It was inter alia alleged in the petition that there was no allegation against the accused petitioner Manjit Singh Guliani that he was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business etc. It was further alleged that the complaint had been filed against M/s. Recon Agrotech Limited through Manjit Singh Guliani, whereas the present petitioner Manjit Singh Guliani has not been prosecuted in his individual capacity. It was further alleged that in the present case the sanction had been obtained for launching the prosecution only against M/s Recon Agrotech Limited through Manjit Singh Guliani and that no sanction has been obtained separately for prosecuting the petitioner namely Manjit Singh Guliani, in his personal capacity.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.