Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 784 (PNJ)

A. K. Chauhan v. State Of Punjab

2001-07-31

M.L.SINGHAL

body2001
Judgment 1. Through this Cri. Misc. Petition No. 6271-M of 2000 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ashok Kumar Chauhan (petitioner) has sought the quashing of complaint Annexure P-1 filed by the State of Punjab through Insecticides Inspector, Bareta, Distt. Mansa against (1) M/s. Garg Trading Company, Bareta, Distt. Mansa through its proprietor Sita Ram; (2) Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar through Surinder Kumar, (ii) A. K. Chauhan, Chemist of Delta Insecticides Ltd. under Sections 3(k)(i), 917, 18, 29, 30, 3(c) and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 10 of Insecticides Rules, 1971 . 2. On 2-7-93, the business premises of M/s. Garg Trading Co., Bareta was inspected by Shri Jagtar Singh Brar, Insecticides Inspector, Bareta. At that time, Shri Sita Ram proprietor of M/s. Garg Trading Co. was also present. Twenty litres of Anilophos 30% EC one litre pack bearing batch No. 23 manufacturing date 5/93 and expiry date 4/95 manufactured by Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar was found lying. Out of 20 litres of pack, one container was taken out. After shaking the said container, he opened its lid and then washed the 3 ISI marked empty containers supplied by the department of Agriculture with small quantity of Insecticide from the selected container and then filled these three ISI marked containers with insecticide from the selected container and then tightened the lids of the filled containers. Each of these 3 containers became a representative of the 20 litres of Anilophos 30% EC lying in the shop. After following the procedure as laid down in the Insecticides Act and the Insecticides Rules, 1971 , he prepared 3 samples. He sealed those samples. One sealed sample and Form No. XII was handed to Sita Ram proprietor for record. Sample was sealed with the seal of the Insecticides Inspector. Payment of the sample was made as per bill to Sita Ram proprietor of the firm. Remaining two samples were deposited in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa intact. Out of these two samples, one sample was sent by Chief Agricultural Officer to the Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. Sample was sealed with the seal of the Insecticides Inspector. Payment of the sample was made as per bill to Sita Ram proprietor of the firm. Remaining two samples were deposited in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa intact. Out of these two samples, one sample was sent by Chief Agricultural Officer to the Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on 16-8-93 found the sample as not conforming to the ISI specifications with respect to its present active ingredient contained from which it was clear the Anilophos 30% EC was misbranded under Section 3(k)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 as the sample contained only 24.91% active ingredient contents of Anilophos instead of 30% EC. It was reported that in this manner the claim of label of insecticides packages of Anilophos 30% bearing batch No. 23 was not met with. 3. Shri A. K. Chauhan has prayed for the quashing of this complaint insofar as he is concerned on grounds that he worked as Chemist in Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar with registered office at Delhi upto 31-12-95. This company manufactures various kinds of insecticides and pesticides and is duly licensed in this regard. It has its own laboratory in the factory premises approved by the Govt. of India which tests each and every lot of insecticides and pesticides before the sale in the market as manufactured by the company. No scope is left for the issuance of misbranded insecticides and pesticides for sale in the market by the said company. He submitted resignation from this company Annexure P-2 wherby he prayed that his resignation be accepted forthwith and he be released from the official responsibilities of all kinds of this company. His resignation was accepted. He was relieved from 31-12-95 by the Director Delta Insecticides Pvt. Limited, Delhi and he joined another company as Production Manager with effect from 1-1-1996. Director of the company is already being prosecuted for the alleged violation by Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar. No useful purpose would be served by prosecuting him who was only a Chemist in Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar and who has already left the services of Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar. Director of the company is already being prosecuted for the alleged violation by Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar. No useful purpose would be served by prosecuting him who was only a Chemist in Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar and who has already left the services of Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar. When he submitted resignation with effect from 31-12-95, he was no more responsible under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act for Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509,M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar which is the manufacturer of the insecticides sampled in this case. Shri Surinder Kumar, Director of Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar is already being prosecuted on behalf of Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar. It is unjust to prosecute him who is an ex-Chemist of Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar. 4. State of Punjab contested this prayer of the petitioner urging that the petitioner was a Chemist in Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar upto 31-12-95. It was he who manufactured misbranded Anilophos 30% EC which contained ingredient 24.91% instead of 30%. As per Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, he was responsible for the quality of the insecticides which was manufactured by the company and from which the sample was drawn and which was found misbranded. 5. In my opinion, complaint Annexure P-1 cannot be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. He was a Chemist in Delta Insecticides Limited, 1509, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar upto 31-12-95. These samples were drawn on 2-7-93 and the manufacturing date of Anilophos 30% EC was 5/93 and the expiry date was 4/95. It is to be decided by the learned Magistrate who is holding trial to find out whether as Chemist he was responsible for maintaining the quality of the insecticides manufactured by the company. Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 reads as follows :- "(1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by company, every person who at the time of 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." 6. If he was Chemist charged with the responsibility of maintaining the quality of the insecticides manufactured by the company, he would be viewed as a person in charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company liable to be prosecuted under the Act. In State of Haryana V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 0 CrLJ 527 : AIR 1992 SC 604 : Hon ble Supreme Court has specified the following categories of cases where the High Court may in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482, Cr.P.C. interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice :1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155(2) of the Code.3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.4. Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155(2) of the Code.5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, callingfor exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR/complaint was not justified."7. So far as complaint Annexure P-1 is concerned, it does not fall in any of the categories so that it could be quashed.For the reasons given above, this Cri. Misc. Petition fails and is dismissed.