ABHEY YOGRAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was just a Director in M/s. Ventech Industry Limited, Khazipally (V) Jinnaram Mandal Medak (AP) (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused company'), has filed this petition impugning the order dated 30-10-2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, dismissing his application for recalling the summoning order and for discharging him and the order dated 3-4-2002 (Annexure P-l) passed by Sessions Judge, Sirsa, confirming the aforesaid order. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the proceedings qua him and the process issued against him in complaint under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the other consequential proceedings pending in the trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a complaint (Annexure P-3) under Section 29(1) of the Act was filed by the Insecticide Inspector, Sirsa in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa for violation of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act against the accused company, (the manufacturing company), its Business Manager, namely M. S. Chandra- shekhar and the petitioner, who was just a Director of the accused company. In the complaint, it was alleged that on 26-9-2000, a sample of Monocrophos 36% SL bearing batch No. 001 Mfg., date June, 2000 and expiry date May, 2001 was drawn by the Insecticide Inspector from the business premises of M/s. Biyani Chambal Ka Maha- bhandar, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, which was found to be 'misbranded' by the Senior Analyst vide his report dated 25-10-2000. In the said sample, the contents of 'Gama Isomar' were found to be 33.79% against 36%. Though the permissible tolerance limits for variation was plus and minus 5%. However, the said sample, in the opinion of the Senior Analyst, was 'misbranded'.

(3.) The cognizance of the said complaint was taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. When the summons were issued to the petitioner including the petitioner, he appeared in the Court and moved an application for recalling the order dated 16-2- 2000 issuing the process to him, primarily on three grounds. Firstly that the petitioner was just a Director of the accused company. He was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused company nor he was involved in day to day running of the business and functioning of the said company. It was further contended that the petitioner was a Director in a different company at Delhi and he never participated in any decision of the accused company. He further submitted that even as per the complaint M. S. Chandrashekhar (accused No. 1) was the person responsible for conduct of the business of the accused company. In the permission sought by the complainant to proceed against the accused company, only said person was mentioned as a person responsible for the affairs of the accused company. Therefore, there was no material against the petitioner to proceed with the said complaint and his summoning in the said complaint was wholly unjustified and illegal. Secondly that the entire prosecution and the proceedings were misconceived as the complainant did not disclose any offence. Thirdly that an information of the report of the Analyst was to be given to the person accused, who has right to adduce evidence, but in the instant case the notice of the report of the Senior Analyst was not given to the petitioner, which has caused great prejudice to him, having lost his valuable right of re-examination of the sample.