Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 922 (PNJ)

Murli Manohar v. State Of Punjab

2001-08-27

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment 1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C., for quashing the criminal complaint under Sections 3k(i), 9, 17, 18, 21(b), 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rules 16 and 19 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and for quashing of all consequent proceedings, arising out of the said complaint. 2. It was alleged that M/s. Madhu Sudan Industries, was a manufacturing industry, manufacturing different types of insecticides and pesticides and that petitioner, Murli Manohar, was the Managing Director of the said company. It was alleged that a criminal complaint had been filed by the Insecticides Inspector against the said company and Murli Manohar, petitioner, and others, with the allegations that the Insecticides Inspector had inspected the shop of M/s. Kasturi Lal and company on 7-7-1993, and had taken the sample and one part of the sample was sent to the Insecticides Testing Laboratory and the Senior Analyst of the said Laboratory found the said sample misbranded and accordingly, the complaint under the Act was filed on 24-10-1994. It was alleged that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the Company, whereas Sh. V. Krishna Moorthy was the responsible person for the conduct of the business of the said Company, while Ramesh Peshion and J. K. Gupta were the Executive Directors of the said Company. It was alleged that as per the certificate issued in the aforesaid Act and the Rules, issued on 10-6-1993, V. Krishna Moorthy was appointed as the responsible person of the said Company. It was alleged that the petitioner was neither the in-charge of the Company nor he was responsible for the conduct of its business. It was alleged that no offence had been committed by the petitioner. Reference was made to Section 33 of the Act, where the Company was to be prosecuted. It was accordingly prayed that the prosecution of the petitioner be quashed. 3. Initially, the petition was filed by Murli Manohar, as petitioner No. 1 and Madhu Sudan Industries, through its Managing Director, Murli Manohar, as petitioner No. 2. Reference was made to Section 33 of the Act, where the Company was to be prosecuted. It was accordingly prayed that the prosecution of the petitioner be quashed. 3. Initially, the petition was filed by Murli Manohar, as petitioner No. 1 and Madhu Sudan Industries, through its Managing Director, Murli Manohar, as petitioner No. 2. However, at the time of motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that M/s. Madhu Sudan Industries was impleaded as petitioner No. 2 in this petition inadvertently and that the present petition may be treated only on behalf of petitioner No. 1 namely Murli Manohar. 4. In the written reply filed by Gurinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, it was alleged that the co-accused of the petitioner had already been held guilty and were convicted and sentenced on 7-2-2000. It was alleged that the Insecticides Inspector had inspected the shop of M/s. Kashmiri Lal and Company and not Kasturi Lal and Company. It was alleged that V. Krishna Moorthy was authorised to sign the principal certificate on behalf of the company, while the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. It was further alleged that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender, after the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C. had been initiated against him, whereas the co-accused had already been convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the complaint dated 24-10-1994, filed by Gurinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, impleading Madhu Sudan Industries as accused No. 3, through its responsible persons, namely V. Krishna Moorthy, Murli Manohar, Ramesh Peshion and J. K. Gupta. In para 10 of the said complaint, it was alleged that the insecticide in question (which was found to be misbranded) was manufactured and supplied by Madhu Sudan Industries, with the consent, knowledge and connivance of V. Krishana Moorthy, Murli Manohar, Ramesh Peshion and J. K. Gupta, who were responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. There is no allegation in the complaint that they were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the said Company. There is no allegation in the complaint that they were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the said Company. In Gharda Chemicals Ltd. V/s. State of Punjab, (1997) 2 Rec Cri R 99, it was held by this Court that it was obvious from plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act that merely being a responsible person, was not enough. He should be responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the Company. In the reported case, there was no assertion made anywhere that the accused was responsible for the company for the conduct of the business of the Company. Under these circumstances, it was held that in the absence of any specific allegation, it was surprising that those persons had been arrayed as accused and unless specific assertions were made, they could not be asked to undergo the agony of the trial. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by this Court, in B. B. Nagpal, Ex Company Secretary V/s. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 Rec Cri R 291. Similar view was taken by this Court in the cases reported as Lal Chand Patni V/s. State of Haryana, (1998) 4 Rec Cri R 546, concerning a case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Similarly, in State of Haryana V/s. Brij Lal Mittal, (1998) 2 Rec Cri R 608 it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, that so far as the Directors were concerned, there was not even a whisper nor a shred of evidence nor anything to show, apart from the presumption drawn by the complainant, that there was any act committed by the Directors from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that they could also be vicariously liable. The Hon ble Supreme Court placed reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in an earlier case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, reported as Delhi Municipality V/s. Ram Kishan, (1983) 1 SCC 1 . The Hon ble Supreme Court placed reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in an earlier case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, reported as Delhi Municipality V/s. Ram Kishan, (1983) 1 SCC 1 . Similarly, in U. S. Madan V/s. State of Punjab, (2000) 1 Rec Cri R 37, it was held by this Court that it had to be shown that the person concerned, at the time when the offence was committed, was the in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. 7. In the present case, as referred to above, the only allegation made by the complainant, in the complaint, was that the offence was committed by the company with the consent, knowledge and connivance of V. Krishna Moorthy, Murli Manohar, Ramesh Peshion and J. K. Gupta, who were responsible for the conduct and business of the company. However, there is no allegation that so far as the present petitioner, Murli Manohar, is concerned, he was responsible to the company for its conduct and business. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the proceedings against the present petitioner, Murli Manohar, would be an abuse of process of the Court and are liable to be quashed. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the criminal complaint and the subsequent proceedings initiated thereon against Murli Manohar, the present petitioner, are hereby quashed.