SHABBIR ITARSI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint filed against the petitioners under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules made thereunder for violation of Sections 3(k)(1) and 17(1)(a) & (c) of the Act and the consequent proceedings arising out of the said complaint.

(2.) PETITIONER Nos. 1 and 2 are the Quality Control Officer and Managing Director, respectively, of M/s Pesticides India, Udaipur. The said company has been granted licence for manufacturing of different types of insecticides under the provisions of the Act by the Central Insecticides Board, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. On 24.3.1999, the Quality Control Inspector, Sirsa drew a sample of Monocrotophos 36% SL from the premises of M/s. Presicide India, 7, Bansal Colony, Sirsa, dealer for the sale of pesticides manufactured by the petitioners' Company. The Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh, found the said sample to be misbranded as it did not conform to ISI specification in its active ingredient. Thereupon, on 12.11.1999 the complaint in question (Annexure P-1) was filed by the Quality Control Inspector, Sirsa in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, quashing of which has been sought in the instant petition. It has been contended that in the complaint (Annexure P-1), it has only been averred that the petitioners are responsible persons for maintaining the quality of products. Hence, they have violated Section 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Act, and thus have committed offence under Section 3(k)(1) of the Act. Except that there is no allegation against the petitioners in the complaint (Annexure P-1). It is no where mentioned therein that the petitioners were incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time when the alleged offence was committed and the sample was taken by the Quality Control Inspector. It has further been submitted that in the complaint (Annexure P-1) even a word has not been mentioned as to in which capacity the petitioners were connected with the manufacture of the insectiside nor it has any where been mentioned that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance or was attributable to any negligence on the part of the petitioners. In view of these averments in the complaint, it has been submitted that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence committed by the company in view of Section 33 of the Act.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.