Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1357 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar Chauhan v. State Of Punjab

2001-12-04

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under the Provisions of thee Insecticides Act, 1968 read with the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner. 2. In the present petition, it was alleged that the petitioner was an employee of M/s Delta Insecticides Ltd., New Delhi and that he has been involved as accused in the criminal complaint filed by the Sate of Punjab through the Insecticide Inspector, Patiala. It was alleged that M/s Delta Insecticides Ltd. manufactures various kinds of pesticides and insecticides. It was alleged that on 10.12.1992, the Insecticide Inspector had drawn a sample from the shop of the dealer i.e. M/s Jindal Sales Corporation, Samana, which insecticide was manufactured by M/s Delta Insecticides Ltd. It was alleged that on analysis by the State Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda, the sample was found to be misbranded. It was further alleged that even after the re-analysis of the second part of the sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, it was still found to be misbranded. It was alleged that the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala, had issued a show cause notice to the aforesaid company i.e. M/s. Delta Insecticides Ltd. and the company had submitted its reply. It was alleged that no notice of any kind was given to the petitioner in his individual capacity. It was further alleged that lateron the complainant filed the complaint dated 23.11.1994, copy Annexure P-1, before the Judicial Magistrate. It was alleged that the said criminal complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, were liable to be quashed, inter alia on th ground that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused even though the manufacturing company, of which the petitioner is an employee, has not been arrayed as a co-accused. It was alleged that the company was liable to be prosecuted. It was further alleged that the office-bearers of the company could be prosecuted only if it was found that the offence was committed by the company. It was further alleged that in the entire complaint, there was no allegation that the petitioner was responsible person for the conduct of the business of the company or that the offence has been committed with the consent of the petitioner. It was further alleged that in the entire complaint, there was no allegation that the petitioner was responsible person for the conduct of the business of the company or that the offence has been committed with the consent of the petitioner. It was alleged that the complaint under Sections 3K(1), 13, 17, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act etc. was liable to be quashed, qua the petitioner. 3. In the written reply filed by Shri Gurmeet Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Patiala, it was alleged that the petitioner was the responsible person of the manufacturer company and could not shift his responsibility on the ground that he was only an employee of the company. It was alleged that the manufacturer company, under the responsibility of the petitioner, had manufactured and sold the misbranded weedicide through their dealer Krishan Gopal of M/s Jindal Sales Corporation, Samana. It was alleged that notice dated 19.4.1993, copy Annexure R-2, was issued to the petitioner but he gave no reply. it was further alleged that the complaint was instituted against the petitioner as well as the company for the contravention of the various provisions of the Insecticides Act and the rules framed thereunder. It was alleged that the petitioner was the responsible person under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act. It was reiterated that the petitioner as well as the manufacturing company were made accused in the complaint filed in the Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the criminal complaint dated 23.11.1994, submitted by the State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act. A perusal of the said complaint would show that there were only two accused in the said complaint i.e. (i) A.K. Chauhan C/o M/s Delta Insecticides Pvt. Ltd. and (ii) Krishan Gopal C/o M/s Jindal Sales Corporation, Samana. From the perusal of the said complaint, it would be clear that in respect of the manufacturer of the insecticide/weedicide only A.K. Chauhan had been impleaded as the accused and his address was given C/o M/s Delta Insecticides Pvt. Ltd. In the body of the complaint, it was alleged that the "weedicide in question was manufactured by M/s Delta Insecticides Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 1)." It was further alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were liable to be punished for the contravention of the various provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 6. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that in the heading of the complaint, the complainant had shown "A.K. Chauhan C/o M/s Delta Insecticides Pvt. ltd." as accused No. 1, whereas in the body of the complaint, it has been alleged that the weedicide in question had been manufactured by M/s Delta Insecticides Pvt. Ltd., which was accused No. 1. In the entire complaint, there is not even a word mentioned as to how the complainant was prosecuting accused No. 1 A.K. Chauhan C/o M/s Delta Insecticides Pvt. Ltd. and in what manner he was connected with the said company and in what manner, he had committed the offence in respect of the weedicide which was manufactured by M/s Delta Insecticides Pvt. Ltd. As per the said complaint, copy Annexure P-1, neither M/s Delta Insecticides Pvt. Ltd., had been specifically made an accused by the complainant nor it was no any where alleged that as to in what manner accused No. 1 A.K. Chauhan (petitioner) had committed the offence under the Provisions of the Insecticides Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 7. Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 reads as under :- "33. 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 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 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. 8. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that as per the sub- section (1) whenever an offence under the said 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, besides the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. It is also provided under sub-section (2) that notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where an offence has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence was 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 also be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. 9. In the present case, as referred to above, not a word has been mentioned in the complaint as to in what capacity the petitioner was connected with the manufacturer M/s Delta Insecticides Pvt. Ltd. nor it has any where been mentioned as to whether the petitioner was in charge of or was responsible to the said company for the conduct of the business of the company. It has also not been mentioned in the complaint that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner could not be proceeded against for the offence under the aforesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 10. It has also not been mentioned in the complaint that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner could not be proceeded against for the offence under the aforesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 10. In view of the above, in my opinion, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereunder against the accused-petitioner are liable to be quashed being the abuse of the process of Court. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the criminal complaint in question and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon, are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.