Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1390 (PNJ)

C. P. Shoran v. State Of Punjab

2001-12-12

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. State of Punjab through its Insecticides Inspector had filed criminal complaint dated 6.4.1995 under the aforesaid offences against 4 persons namely (1) Kirpal Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Paul Pesticide, (dealer) (2) Surinder Kumar, partner of M/s. Pest Control Service (distributor), (3) Surinder N. Desai, Assistant Manager Quality Control, and (4) C.S. Shoran, Sales Manager; both of M/s Cynamid India Limited (manufacturer). 3. In the complaint, it was alleged that M/s. Paul Pesticides was dealing in the pesticides/insecticides and that on 8.6.1994 the Insecticides Inspector alongwith others had gone to the shop of M/s. Paul Pesticide, Ferozepur City and had drawn the sample of the insecticide, which was manufactured in October 1993 with expiry date of April, 1995 from 1 kg. packing, manufactured by M/s. Cynamid India Limited. It was alleged that one part of the sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, S.I.L. Bhatinda and as per the report of the Senior Analyst, the sample did not conform to the I.S. specifications, with respect to its percentage active ingredient content, which was found to be 8.9% instead of 10% and as such the sample was declared misbranded. It was alleged that the copy of the test report was delivered to the dealer as also to the distributor and manufacturer. It was further alleged that M/s. Paul Pesticide had committed the offence (being the dealer) and M/s Cynamid India Ltd. and M/s. Pest Control Service had also committed the offence, being manufacturer and supplier/distributor. It was alleged that necessary sanction/consent had been obtained for prosecuting the accused firms and persons. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate summoned the accused persons. In the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by accused C.P. Shoran, it has been inter alia alleged that in the complaint there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was the incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its manufacturing unit. In the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by accused C.P. Shoran, it has been inter alia alleged that in the complaint there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was the incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its manufacturing unit. It was alleged that C.P. Shoran, petitioner, was working just as Sales Manager of M/s. Cynamid India Ltd., at the time when the sample was taken from M/s. Paul Pesticide, Ferozepur and that petitioner was not incharge and responsible for the quality control of the company rather he was incharge of distribution and supply, being Sales Manager of the company. It was alleged that the complaint had been filed against the petitioner without even implicating the company as an accused. 5. In the written reply filed by Shri Gurbachan Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Ferozepur, it has been alleged that C.P. Shoran, petitioner, was Sales Manager of M/s. Cynamid India Ltd. and was posted at New Delhi. It was alleged that C.P. Shoran was fully responsible for the act and conduct of the company and had been rightly prosecuted after taking proper sanction. It was alleged that C.P. Shoran, petitioner, could not escape from his liability and "it does not matter if allegation is not there in the complaint." 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. As referred to above, in the criminal complaint, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P1 with the present petition, not a word has been said about the present petitioner namely C.P. Shoran. It has nowhere been mentioned in the said complaint that he was incharge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. It was also not alleged in the complaint that the offence was committed by the company with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of the petitioner namely C.P. Shoran, who was working as Sales Manager of M/s. Cynamid India Ltd. Thus, the requirements of Section 33(1) and 33(2) of the Act have not been complied with by the complainant State in the present case. In fact, except impleading C.P. Shoran, petitioner, as accused No. 4 in the complaint, not a word has been said about him in the body of the complaint. In fact, except impleading C.P. Shoran, petitioner, as accused No. 4 in the complaint, not a word has been said about him in the body of the complaint. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the present petitioner namely C.P. Shoran could not be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences, especially when there is no allegation against him in the entire complaint, complying with the requirements of Section 33(1) and 33(2) of the Act. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed. Criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioner C.P. Shoran are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.