Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arising out of the same complaint under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. 2. Crl. M. No. 8736-M of 1993 is the petition filed by the petitioner, namely J.K. Pareek, Commercial Manager, Herbicides (I) Limited, New Delhi. It was alleged in this petition that he is working as Commercial Manager of the Company and that he has been made accused in this complaint only because he was allegedly working with the aforesaid company, who had manufactured the insecticide in question. It was alleged that in the criminal complaint the petitioner namely J.K. Pareek had been impleaded as an accused without impleading the company as an accused and that in the complaint it was nowhere mentioned as to in what capacity the petitioner was working in the said company and in what manner he had contravened the provisions of the Act. Crl. M. No. 4771-M of 1995 has been filed by accused petitioner Ram Chander, for the quashment of the aforesaid complaint under Section 29(1) of the Act, alleging therein that he was only a dealer of the insecticide in question and that sample was taken by the Insecticide Inspector from him in a sealed packet and as such Ram Chander, petitioner, being the dealer, could not be made liable for any offence under the Act. 3. I have learned the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. So far as the petition bearing Crl. M. No. 8736-M of 1993 filed by accused J.K. Pareek on behalf of the manufacturer is concerned, in my opinion, the said petition has to be allowed and the criminal complaint filed by the State of Haryana against accused petitioner J.K. Pareek is to be quashed. 5. Annexure P1 with the said petition is copy of the complaint under Section 29(1) of the Act. The said complaint has been filed against Ram Chander (dealer) as respondent No. 1 and J.K. Pareek, Commercial Manager, M/s Herbicides India Limited (manufacturer) as respondent No. 2. In the said complaint it was alleged that the dealer had purchased the said insecticide from the manufacture M/s Herbicides India Limited (respondent No. 2) and that respondent No. 1 was the authorised dealer of the manufacturer. In the said complaint it was alleged that the dealer had purchased the said insecticide from the manufacture M/s Herbicides India Limited (respondent No. 2) and that respondent No. 1 was the authorised dealer of the manufacturer. Except mentioning in the title of the complaint that J.K. Pareek was Commercial Manager of M/s Herbicides India Limited, it was nowhere mentioned in the said complaint as to in what manner J.K. Pareek was responsible on behalf of the firm M/s Herbicides India Limited. On the other hand, in para 2 of the complaint it was mentioned that the manufacturer was M/s Herbicides India Limited, respondent No. 2 and that M/s Herbicides India Limited had violated the various provisions of the Act and rules being the manufacturer of the insecticide. In the entire complaint (except the title), not a mention has been made about the involvement of present petitioner J.K. Pareek on behalf of the manufacturer. Merely because accused petitioner J.K. Pareek was the Commercial Manager of M/s Herbicides India Limited, it could be said that he was liable to be prosecuted on behalf of the manufacturer. 6. Section 33 of the Insecticides Act reads as under :- "Offences by companies. - (1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge 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 punished accordingly : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly." 7. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that whenever an offence under the aforesaid Act has been committed by a company (as in this case), every person, who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This is in addition to the company. It is further provided therein that where an offence has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In the present case, as referred to above, except in the title of the complaint that J.K. Pareek petitioner is Commercial Manager of M/s Herbicides India Limited, not a word has been mentioned as to whether J.K. Pareek petitioner was incharge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, nor it was mentioned in the complaint that offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the petitioner (being Commercial Manager). Under these circumstances, in my opinion, in the absence of any such allegations, present petitioner J.K. Pareek could not be held liable for any of the offences under the Insecticides Act and/or rules framed thereunder on behalf of the firm M/s Herbicides India Limited. In view of the above, in my opinion, the criminal complaint, summoning order and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon qua petitioner namely J.K. Pareek are liable to be quashed being the abuse of the process of the Court. 8. So far as the other petition filed by accused Ram Chander is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that sample was taken from the sealed packet and in view of the provisions of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, the petitioner being dealer could not be held liable when the sample had been taken from sealed parcel. 9. 8. So far as the other petition filed by accused Ram Chander is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that sample was taken from the sealed packet and in view of the provisions of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, the petitioner being dealer could not be held liable when the sample had been taken from sealed parcel. 9. In the written reply dated 11.1.2001 filed by Shri Ratti Ram Poonia, Quality Control Inspector, the allegation that the petitioner had sold the sample in a sealed parcel as it was received from the manufacturer, had been specifically denied. Criminal complaint, Annexure P1 filed with the petition is absolutely silent as to whether the sample was taken from the sealed packet or otherwise. Thus, neither in the complaint it has been admitted by the complainant that the sample was taken from the sealed container nor in the written statement this fact has been admitted by the State of Haryana. In this view of the matter, at this stage, it could not be said as to whether the sample was taken from sealed packet or otherwise. That being so, in my opinion, petitioner Ram Chander cannot take any benefit of Section 30 of the Act. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the criminal complaint, summoning order and subsequent proceedings taken thereon against present petitioner Ram Chander (dealer) cannot be quashed on the allegation that sample was taken from a sealed packet, as alleged. However, it would be open to the accused petitioner Ram Chander to show during trial that he was entitled to benefit of provisions of Section 30 of the Act. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the petition bearing Crl. M. No. 8736-M of 1993 is allowed and the criminal complaint, summoning order and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioner namely J.K. Pareek are hereby quashed. However, the other petition, bearing Crl. M. No. 4771-M of 1995 filed by accused petitioner Ram Chander, is hereby dismissed. 11. However, it is made clear that nothing stated above, shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.