P.D. GARG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint No. 230/12 dated 17.12.2012 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 10(4)(ii) and Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 at Annexure P-l as also the summoning order dated 17.12.2012 at Annexure P-2 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran. Brief facts that would require notice are that M/s. Unique Farm Aid Pvt. Ltd. is a registered manufacturer of various kinds of insecticides and pesticides. On 13.12.2011 Kuljit Singh Insecticide Inspector, Tarn Taran is stated to have visited the premises of one dealer i.e. M/s. Gill Kheti Store, Jandiala Road, Tarn Taran and drew a sample of insecticide, namely, Clodinofop Propargyl 15% WP, brand Victory, bearing batch No. 11UF1503, mfg. date December 2011, expiry date November 2013. Such insecticide sample is stated to have been allegedly manufactured by M/s. Unique Farm Aid Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Thereafter, out of three parts of the representative sample, one part was sent to Stale Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana for analysis and the same was found misbranded after analysis. Upon re-analysis by Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad active ingredients were found at 11% against 15%. Show cause notices were stated to have been issued by the Office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Tarn Taran to the manufacturing company as well as to the dealer. Against the afore-noticed factual matrix, the impugned complaint dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure P-1) was instituted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran and taking cognizance thereupon the summoning order dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure P-2) has been issued to the present petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that petitioner No. 1 is the Director of the company, namely, M/s. Unique Farm Aid Pvt. Ltd. and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the Godown Incharge and Sales Officer of the company and under the provisions of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and with particular reference to Section 33 thereof, whenever a company is sought to be prosecuted for an offence under the Act, such persons alone can be cited as accused as were in charge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of the offence. Counsel would argue that the complaint is required to specifically and categorically aver that the accused were in charge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Counsel has further contended that in the present case, the company i.e. M/s. Unique Farm Aid Pvt. Ltd. has already appointed one person under Section 33 of the Act i.e. Sh. S.K. Pathak, Quality Control Manager-cum-responsible person/nominated person and as such the impugned complaint and prosecution in pursuance thereto could proceed against the company as also the responsible/nominated person alone. It has been argued that the present petitioners merely on account of holding the position of a Director, Godown Incharge and Sales Officer could not have been summoned to face trial.

(3.) Per-contra, learned State counsel would contend that while initiating prosecution under the Act, it is not necessary to reproduce the words contained in Section 33 of the Act. Learned State counsel has further argued that a perusal of the complaint would in itself show that the requirement of Section 33 of the Act has been complied with and as such no interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is called for.