K.C.S. BHATTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned complaint No. 2245 dated 8.8.2008 under Sections 17(1)(A), 18 and section 29(1)(A) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Insecticide Rules, 1971 as well as summoning order dated 8.8.2008. Briefly, the facts of the case, as mentioned in the present petition, are that a sample was drawn by a Quality Control Inspector -cum -Insecticide Inspector, Panipat of insecticide, namely, Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G bearing batch No. 13 from one dealer i.e. M/s. National Seed House, 78, New Sabji Mandi, Panipat. The said insecticide material A was manufactured and supplied by the company i.e. M/s. Nicel Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Three sample were drawn and out of that one part of sample was sent to State Quality Control Lab., Karnal for analysis which was found to be misbranded. Thereafter, the referral part of the sample was found to be misbranded after analysis by Central Insecticide Lab., Faridabad. A show cause notice was issued to the company to which a reply was submitted. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before CJM, Panipat and summoning order dated 8.8.2008 was passed. Both the complaint as well as summoning order are subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of section 33 of the Insecticide Act have not been complied with and the present petitioner cannot be held liable as the offence has not been committed by him as neither he was in -charge of the company nor was responsible for the day to day activities of business of the company. Learned counsel also submits that neither there are specific averments in the complaint nor it has been mentioned that the petitioner was in -charge and responsible for conduct of business at the relevant period or the alleged offence was committed with his consent and connivance. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in State of NCT of Delhi v. Rajiv Khurana, : 2010 AIR (SC) 2986 as well as judgment of this Court in S.K. Jindal v. State of Haryana, : 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 68 in support of his contentions.

(3.) HEARD , learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the complaint, summoning order as well as other documents on the file.