N S BAWA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 14.12.2002 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The case of the complainant, as stated in the complaint (Annexure P-2), in brief, is that on 15.6.1993, in the premises of M/s Aman Pesticide Sangowal Road Mehatpur, insecticide i.e. Maneozeb 75% w/w Batch No.93 04.x.046 manufactured by M/s Indofil Chemicals Company Bombay were checked. Samples were drawn from the said insecticide. One sample was sent to the analyst for analysis. The analyst, vide report dated 19.10.1993, opined that the samples did not conform to the relevant I.S. specifications in respect of its active ingredient content i.e. 82.7% against given strength 75% i.e. Hence, the sample was sub standard due to variation of 7.7%. In pursuance to the complaint, trial Court summoned the accused to face the trial. The petitioner moved an application for his discharge. Vide impugned order dated 14.12.2002 (Annexure P-1), the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been impleaded as an accused being Sales Manager of M/s Indofil Chemicals Company, Bombay without impleading the company as an accused. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Aneeta Hada vs. M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., 2012 2 RCR(Cri) 854, wherein the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court vide judgment dated 27.4.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2008 has held as under:-

(3.) In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself.