TRILOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Trilok Singh, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Trilo Agro Industries Limited, manufacturer of the mis- branded insecticide, has filed this petition for quashing the complaint under Sections 3 k(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules, 1971, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Malout, and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , on August 20, 1997, a sample of Ethion 50% was drawn from the shop of M/s. Jassa Ram Krishan Lal, Malout, a dealer of the aforesaid Company. The said sample was found to be mis-branded. Subsequently, the instant complaint was filed on September 3, 1998, against M/s. Jassa Ram Krishan Lal, the dealer, through its two partners, namely Krishan Lal and Charan Singh, as they were the responsible persons to run the business of partnership. The manufacturing Company namely M/s. Trilo Agro Industries Limited was also impleaded as second accused through its responsible person, namely Trilok Singh (petitioner herein) and one R.S. Negi, who was an employee of the Company, being Chief Chemist.

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I am not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. The petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Company, is the person incharge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business. The Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), while granting permission to the Insecticide Inspector to prosecute the manufacturer vide letter dated March 6, 1998 (Annexure P-10), has granted permission to prosecute the petitioner being responsible person to the business of the company. In view of this sanction letter, at this stage, the complaint qua the petitioner cannot be quashed on the ground that he is not the person responsible for the affairs and conduct of the business. However, as per the proviso to Section 33 of the Act, the petitioner will always be at liberty to raise defence before the trial Court by leading evidence that he was not the person responsible and the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. However, at this stage, such question cannot be gone into by this Court. Hence, I do not find any reason to quash the complaint qua the petitioner. Petition dismissed.