VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC seeks quashing of the proceedings in cc No. 21 of 1997 on the file of the additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, tadepalligudem in which the petitioners herein are sought to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 3 (k) (i) of the insecticides Act, 1968. ( 3 ) THE allegations against the accused as stated in the charge-sheet are that a fungicide called 80% W. P. Sulphur manufactured by accused No. 5 company was subjected to chemical analysis by the state Analyst, and it was found that it contained active ingredients to an extent of47. 61% which obviously amounts to offering for sale of mis-branded product inasmuch as the product was branded as containing 80% sulphur. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, the product was sent to Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad and the result of analysis revealed that it had 78. 2% active ingredient which admittedly is within the permissible limits. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the result of the Central Insecticide laboratory is deemed final under section 24 (4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, there is no basis for launching prosecution against the petitioners. The learned Public prosecutor on the other hand points out that the said Central Insecticide Laboratory report on which the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely also contains as one of the results of the analysis that the sample does not conform to the relevant vs specification in the suspendability test requirement and as such it is substandard. The contention of the learned public Prosecutor is that inasmuch as the product does not satisfy the prescribed standards, the prosecution of the petitioners for an offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is perfectly justified. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the packet in which the product was sold does not contain any branding in respect of suspendability and as such the product cannot be considered as mis-branded within the meaning of Section 3 (k) (i) of the insecticides Act. ( 7 ) IT may be mentioned that the label, wettable sulpher has some connotation with reference to the product being capable of mixing with water for being used as a spray material. ( 7 ) IT may be mentioned that the label, wettable sulpher has some connotation with reference to the product being capable of mixing with water for being used as a spray material. Considering these circumstances, whether the product being substandard from the point of view of suspendability amounts to it being mis-branded or not is a question of fact which has to be determined during the trial by ascertaining the meaning and significance of analyst s report. In the light of such material and evidence as may be placed before the trial Court, considering these circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioners on this ground cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr. PC. ( 8 ) IN the complaint accused No. 3 is described as "m/s. United Phosphorus limited, Worli, Bombay, Branch Office, d. No. 24-2-42/43, Patnam Bazar, Guntur (distributor)" and accused No. 4 is described as the Incharge, Branch Office, M/s. United phosphorus Limited, Patnam Bazar, Guntur (distributor) . ( 9 ) THE contention is that these accused are neither legal entities nor identifiable persons and as such the question of these accused being prosecuted does not arise. There is some substance in the contention. It is seen that accused No. 3 and accused no. 4 as described in the compliant are not indicative of their being legal entities as a company or Society etc. In the same way, no individual name is shown as the person incharge of the Branch Office or as distributor. Thus, by reading the description of the accused 3 and 4, it is not possible to identify any person as an accused. Under these circumstances, the accused 3 and 4 shown as petitioners 1 and 2 herein are directed to be deleted from the list of the accused. ( 10 ) THE other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as far as accused Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, they cannot be held to be liable for the offences said to have been committed by the accused No. 5 in view of the provisions in Section 33 of the Insecticides act. ( 10 ) THE other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as far as accused Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, they cannot be held to be liable for the offences said to have been committed by the accused No. 5 in view of the provisions in Section 33 of the Insecticides act. Section 33 (1) of the Act contemplates that whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of, the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punishable accordingly. ( 11 ) AS far as accused No. 6 is concerned, it is clearly indicated in the complaint that he was the Chief Executive of accused No. 5 manufacturing company and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. In regard to accused No. 7, he is described as the Chemist of the Company. Considering the nature of the product and the nature of the Industry, the responsibility of the Chemist in the manufacturing process of the product cannot be ignored. At any rate, whether these accused come within the purview of Section 33 of the Act is a matter which has to be gone into during the trial. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that NBWs. , have been issued against accused Nos. 6 and 7 and as these proceedings here are pending, they could not move the trial Court for re-calling of NBWs, Considering these circumstances, it is directed that NBWs against accused nos. 6 and 7 shall not be executed for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioners to move an application before the learned magistrate for re-calling NBWs. and for any other relief they may seek from the learned magistrate. ( 13 ) WITH the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.