GHARDA CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSECTICIDE Inspector, Muktsar had taken three samples of Anilophos bearing Batch No. 82 having manufacturing date of July, 1991 and expiry date of June, 1993 from the premises of M/s. Jain Traders, Muktsar. This samples were taken on 22.6.1992. Three sealed containers were taken for purposes of sample. One sealed sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. Report was received that it does not conform to the physical description required. It was misbranded. On the basis of the said report, the complaint was filed on 28.5.1994. It was filed against S.S. Upadhaya, E. Philips and J.S. Syed besides others.

(2.) PETITIONERS seek quashing of the complaint and contend that when sample was found misbranded, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner-company as to why action may not be initiated under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968. A reply was sent that no law had been violated. The petitioners did not accept the results mentioned in the report. The request of the petitioners was ignored and the complaint was filed after the shelf life of the product had expired. In this process a valuable right of the petitioner was lost. Besides that it is contended that proper sanction has not been granted. There is no averment in the complaint as to who was the person incharge of the company and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. In the absence of any such averment, the petitioners mentioned above could not be prosecuted.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners at the outset argued that petitioners namely S.S. Upadhaya, E. Philips and J.S. Syed could not be prosecuted because they were not the persons incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 runs as under :-