Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., under the Insecticides Act, 1968 , as common questions of law are involved in all these cases. For the purpose of convenience, facts of the case, bearing Crl.M. No. 41917-M of 2001, may be noticed. 2. The State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, Maur, filed a complaint under Sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), against M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, through its responsible person Badri Parsad (proprietor), being the dealer, M/s Recon Agrotech Limited, Giddarbaha, through its responsible person Manjit Singh Guliani (manufacturer), M/s Nagarjuna Agro & Steel Corporation, Giddarbaha, through its responsible person I.N. Sangra (Zonal Manager), M/s. Recon Agrotech Limited, Bangalore, through its responsible person Mr. Mukesh Kwatra (Customer Services Officer), being the marketing company and M/s Nagarjuna Agro & Steel Corporation, Vijaywara through its responsible person (i) Mr. I.N. Sangra (Zonal Manager) and (ii), Mr. P.S.V.R. Parsad (Production Executive), being the manufacturer of the insecticide in question. It was alleged in the complaint that the Insecticide Inspector had taken the sample of Monocrotophos 36% S.L. from M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, Maur Mandi, on 21.8.97, by selecting one pack of one litre out of 111 packs of one litre, bearing batch No. 97005, manufacturing date May, 1997, expiry date October, 1998, manufactured by M/s Nagarjuna Agro & Steel Corporation, Vijayawara, for the purpose of sampling, by taking 750 millilitres of Monocroptoplos 36% SL. (from the said one litre pack which was selected). It was alleged that the sample was taken in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules. It was alleged that one part of the sample was given to Badri Parsad, proprietor of M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, while the remaining two parts of the sample were deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda, who had sent one sealed sample in intact position to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Lab., Amritsar alongwith letter dated 22.8.1997. It was alleged that one part of the sample was given to Badri Parsad, proprietor of M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, while the remaining two parts of the sample were deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda, who had sent one sealed sample in intact position to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Lab., Amritsar alongwith letter dated 22.8.1997. It was alleged that test report of the sample was received from the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Lab., Amritsar, declaring the sample as mis-branded, as it did not conform to the I.S. specifications in the active ingredient contents, inasmuch as the contends were found to be only 32.35% SL. instead of 36% SL. It was alleged that a copy of the analysis report was delivered to the dealer alongwith show cause notice. Similarly copy of the analysis report was also delivered to the distributor, marketer and manufacturing firm alongwith show cause notices. It was alleged that on the request of the dealer and the marketer, reference sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Testing Lab. Faridabad by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda, vide letter dated 12.11.1998, and the sample was again declared mis-branded, as active ingredients contents were found to be only 29.6% SL. instead of 36% SL, Monocrotophos and it did not conform to the I.S. specifications. It was alleged that full opportunity was given to the dealer, distributor, marketer and the manufacturing firm, before initiating legal action again them. It was alleged that they were under legal obligation to supply the insecticide products as per provisions of the Act and Rules. It was alleged that Badri Parsad, proprietor of M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, Maur Mandi, sold the product and thus had committed the above mentioned offences and it was alleged that Mr. M.S Guliani, Manager of M/s Recon Agrotech Ltd., Gidderbaha and I.N. Sangra Zonal Manager of M/s Nagarjuna Agro and Steel Corporation, Gidderbaha, had committed the aforesaid offences by selling, stocking and supplying for sale mis-branded insecticide. It was further alleged that Mukesh Kwatra, Customer Services Officer of M/s Recon Agro Tech. Ltd., Bangalore, had committed the offences by selling, stocking and supplying for sale mis-branded insecticides, while I.N. Sangra, Zonal Manager and P.S.V.R. Parasad, Production Executive of M/s Nagarjuna Agro and Steel Corporation, Vijayawara (being the responsible persons of manufacturer), had also committed the aforementioned offences by formulating and supplying for sale mis-branded insecticides. Ltd., Bangalore, had committed the offences by selling, stocking and supplying for sale mis-branded insecticides, while I.N. Sangra, Zonal Manager and P.S.V.R. Parasad, Production Executive of M/s Nagarjuna Agro and Steel Corporation, Vijayawara (being the responsible persons of manufacturer), had also committed the aforementioned offences by formulating and supplying for sale mis-branded insecticides. It was accordingly prayed that the aforesaid persons be summoned as accused and punished accordingly. After the filing of the criminal complaint, learned Magistrate ordered summoning of the accused. Aggrieved against the same the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh Guliani, seeking quashment of the aforesaid criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. It was inter alia alleged in the petition that there was no allegation against the accused petitioner Manjit Singh Guliani that he was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business etc. It was further alleged that the complaint had been filed against M/s. Recon Agrotech Limited through Manjit Singh Guliani, whereas the present petitioner Manjit Singh Guliani has not been prosecuted in his individual capacity. It was further alleged that in the present case the sanction had been obtained for launching the prosecution only against M/s Recon Agrotech Limited through Manjit Singh Guliani and that no sanction has been obtained separately for prosecuting the petitioner namely Manjit Singh Guliani, in his personal capacity. 3. In the written statement filed by Shri Paramjit Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Maur, District Bathinda, it was alleged that the petitioner was responsible person and was working as Sales Manager of M/s Recon Agrotech Limited. It was alleged that the complaint was filed after proper sanction etc. It was alleged taht the petitioner being responsible person on behalf of M/s Recon Agrotech Limited, Gidderbaha, proper sanction against the petitioner had been obtained from the competent authority. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. As referred to above, the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, was filed by the State of Punjab Against M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, Maur Mandi through its responsible person Badri Parsad (proprietor), M/s Recon Agrotech Limited, Grain Market, Giddarbaha through its responsible person Manjit Singh Guliani (Manager), M/s Nagarjuna Agro & Steel Corporation, Grain Market, Gidderbaha through its responsible person Sh. As referred to above, the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, was filed by the State of Punjab Against M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, Maur Mandi through its responsible person Badri Parsad (proprietor), M/s Recon Agrotech Limited, Grain Market, Giddarbaha through its responsible person Manjit Singh Guliani (Manager), M/s Nagarjuna Agro & Steel Corporation, Grain Market, Gidderbaha through its responsible person Sh. I.N. Sangra (Zonal Manager), M/s Recon Agrotech Limited, Bangalore through its responsible person Shri Mukesh Kwatra (Customer Services Officer) and M/s Nagarjuna Agro & Steel Corporation, Vijaywara through its responsible persons (i) I.N. Sangra (Zonal Manager) and (ii) Sh. P.S.V.R. Parsad (Production Executive). Annexure P4 is the copy of the consent/sanction under Section 31(1) of the Act. A perusal thereof would show that the sanctioning authority (Joint Director, Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh) was satisfied from the perusal of the record produced before him that M/s Ginni Sales Corporation, Maur Mandi (Dealer), M/s Recon Agrotech Limited, Gidderbaha and M/s Nagarjuna Agro Industrial corporation, Gidderbaha (Distributors), M/s Recon Agrotech Ltd., Bangalore (Marketing Company) and M/s Nagarjuna Agro and Steel Corporation, Vijayawara (Manufacturer), had committed the offences under sections 3(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act. Accordingly, exercising his powers under Section 31(1) of the Act, the Joint Director, Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh had given his consent to launch prosecution and to proceed further under Rule 27(5) of the Rules, for the violation of the various provisions of the Act against the aforesaid firms/companies through their responsible persons named above. This consent/sanction is dated 2.12.1998. It was in furtherance of the said consent/sanction that the Insecticide Inspector had filed the above mentioned criminal complaint dated 24.12.1998, copy Annexure P1. 6. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that the sanctioning authority, while granting consent/sanction, was satisfied that the various firms/companies, referred to above, had committed various offences and accordingly, the sanctioning authority had granted consent/sanction for the prosecution of those firms/companies through their responsible persons named therein. Even the complaint, which was filed by the State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, was also filed against the aforesaid firms/companies through their responsible persons named therein. Even the complaint, which was filed by the State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, was also filed against the aforesaid firms/companies through their responsible persons named therein. Those persons, through whom the various firms/companies were prosecuted in the criminal complaint as responsible persons of those firms/companies, had not been prosecuted by the State of Punjab in their individual capacity but only they were to represent the firms/companies, who were prosecuted by the State of Punjab through the Insecticide Inspector and for the prosecution of those firms/companies the sanctioning authority had granted necessary permission/sanction. As referred to above, in the consent/sanction order, it is specifically mentioned by the sanctioning authority that he was satisfied that those firms/companies had committed the various offences and that consent was being granted for the prosecution of those companies through their responsible persons. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the sanctioning authority had also granted consent/sanction under Section 31(1) of the Act for the prosecution of those persons (alleged to be responsible persons) in their individual capacity. Once it is found that the sanction was granted only for the prosecution of firms/companies and they were to be prosecuted through their responsible persons and even the prosecution was also launched by filing the criminal complaint against the firms/companies through their responsible persons, referred therein, it would be clear that those persons could not be prosecuted in their personal capacity. Thus, persons through whom the firms/companies were prosecuted, could not be termed as accused in their personal capacity. They are before the court only to represent the firms/companies, which have been prosecuted by the State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector. This is especially so, when the learned counsel appearing for the State, on the basis of record, had failed to show that these persons through whom the various firms/companies have been prosecuted, were ever made accused in the criminal complaint and/or necessary consent/sanction had been granted by the sanctioning authority to prosecute them in their personal capacity. 7. In view of the above, in my opinion, petitioner Manjit Singh Guliani could not be prosecuted, in his personal capacity. That being so, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings against the present petitioner Manjit Singh Guliani, in his personal capacity, are liable to be quashed. Hence quashed. 8. 7. In view of the above, in my opinion, petitioner Manjit Singh Guliani could not be prosecuted, in his personal capacity. That being so, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings against the present petitioner Manjit Singh Guliani, in his personal capacity, are liable to be quashed. Hence quashed. 8. Similar would be the position in the following cases :- (1) Mukesh Kwatra, petitioner in Crl.M. No. 34540-M of 2001 ; (2) Madan Lal Sachdeva, petitioner in Crl.M. No. 35313-M of 2001 ; (3) Kidar Nath Dwivedi, petitioner in Crl.M. No. 41126-M of 2001 ; (4) V.K. Pahwa and V.K. Jhaver, petitioners in Crl.M. No. 33258-M of 2000; (5) Jawahar Lal Bansal, petitioner in Crl.M. No. 33281-M of 2000; (6) Jawahar Lal Bansal, petitioner in Crl.M. No. 10830-M of 2000; (7) Jawahar Lal Bansal, petitioner in Crl.M. No. 10832-M of 2000; and (8) P.H. Narayan, petitioner in Crl.M. No. 641-M of 1997 The criminal complaints and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon against the aforesaid petitioners, in their personal capacity, are hereby quashed. 9 In Crl.M. No. 36844-M of 2001, initially petition was filed on behalf of M/s Chemicides India Limited, New Delhi through its responsible officer Bhupinder Singh Dahiya and also by Bhupinder Singh Dahiya in his personal capacity. At the time when the petition came up for motion hearing, it was submitted before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petition be treated only on behalf of Bhupinder Singh Dahiya, petitioner and that the present petition on behalf of M/s. Chemicides India Limited may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, vide order dated 13.9.2001, it was directed that the said petition shall be treated only on behalf of the Bhupinder Singh Dahiya, whereas the said petition on behalf of M/s. Chemicides India Limited shall stand dismissed as not pressed. 10. For the reasons already given, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon against Bhupinder Singh Dahiya, in his personal capacity are liable to be quashed. Hence quashed. It is made clear that the petition on behalf of the firm-M/s Chemicides India Limited already stands dismissed as not pressed (as referred to above). Hence, the criminal complaint against M/s Chemicides India Limited through its responsible person Bhupinder SIngh Dahiya shall proceed in accordance with law. 11. In Crl.M. No. 25237-M of 2000, there are 3 petitioners. Hence quashed. It is made clear that the petition on behalf of the firm-M/s Chemicides India Limited already stands dismissed as not pressed (as referred to above). Hence, the criminal complaint against M/s Chemicides India Limited through its responsible person Bhupinder SIngh Dahiya shall proceed in accordance with law. 11. In Crl.M. No. 25237-M of 2000, there are 3 petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is M/s Haryana Chemicals and Pesticides, Bahadurgarh through its partner Sanjay Kakar, while petitioner No. 2 is Sanjay Kakar, while petitioner No. 3 is R.K. Hudda. For the reasons already given above, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken against petitioners Sanjay Kakar and R.K. Hudda, in their personal capacity, are liable to be quashed. Hence quashed. However, so far as petitioner No. 1 M/s Haryana Chemicals and Pesticides is concerned, the criminal complaint shall proceed against the said firm in accordance with law, inasmuch as no case is made out for quashing the criminal complaint against the said firm. 12. In Crl.M. No. 24473-M of 2000, there are 3 petitioners, petitioner No. 1 is M/s Thakar Chemicals Limited, New Delhi through its Marketing Manager, R.K. Mahajan, while petitioners No. 2 and 3 are R.K. Mahajan and Sant Lal 13. For the reasons already given above, the criminal-complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken against petitioners 2 and 3 namely R.K. Mahajan and Sant Lal, in their personal capacity, are liable to be quashed. Hence quashed. However, so far as petitioner No. 1 M/s Thakar Chemicals Limited is concerned, the criminal complaint shall proceed against the said firm in accordance with law, inasmuch as no case in made out for quashing the criminal complaint against the said firm. 14. In Crl.M. No. 17022-M of 2000, there are two petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is M/s Thakar Chemicals, New Delhi, through its partner Sant Lal, while petitioner No. 2 is Sant Lal. 15. For the reasons already given above, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken against petitioner Sant Lal, in his personal capacity, are liable to be quashed. Hence quashed. However, so far as petitioner No. 1 M/s Thakar Chemicals is concerned, the criminal complaint shall proceed against the said firm through its responsible person Sant Lal, in accordance with law, inasmuch as no case is made out for quashing the criminal complaint against the said firm. 16. Hence quashed. However, so far as petitioner No. 1 M/s Thakar Chemicals is concerned, the criminal complaint shall proceed against the said firm through its responsible person Sant Lal, in accordance with law, inasmuch as no case is made out for quashing the criminal complaint against the said firm. 16. In Crl.M. No. 12966-M of 2000, there are six petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is M/s Hoechest India Limited, Gujarat through S. Jairaman (Quality Control Expert Staff), whereas petitioners No. 2 to 6 are S. Jairaman, S.S. Manhas, Ashok Barpujari, K.K. Uni and V.S. Kaushik. 17. For the reasons already given above, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon against petitioners 2 to 6, in their personal capacity, are liable to be quashed. Hence quashed. However, so far as petitioner No. 1 M/s Hoechest India Limited is concerned, the criminal complaint shall proceed against the said firm through its responsible person S. Jairaman, in accordance with law, inasmuch as no case is made out for quashing the criminal complaint against the said firm. 18. In Crl.M. No. 26527-M of 2000, there are 5 petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is M/s Vaishno Brothers, Jandiala Garu, whereas petitioners No. 2 to 5 are Krishan Lal Dhingra, Vaishno Kumar, Ravi Shankar and Subhash Chander Gupta. So far as petitioner No. 5-Subhash Chander Gupta is concerned, he was not prosecuted in his personal capacity. On the other hand M/s Super Trade Links, Chandigarh was prosecuted through Subhash Chander Gupta being the sole proprietor. 19. For the reasons already given above, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken against petitioner No. 5 Subhash Chander Gupta, in his personal capacity, are liable to be quashed. Hence quashed. 20. So far as petitioners 1 to 4 are concerned, petitioner No. 1 is the dealer firm from whom sample was taken, while petitioners 2 to 4 are partners of the firm. The licence of the firm was cancelled by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar, as the firm was found to be selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale unregistered insecticides without licence. Against the said order of the Chief Agricultural Officer, cancelling the licence of the firm, an appeal under Section 15 of the Act was filed. The licence of the firm was cancelled by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar, as the firm was found to be selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale unregistered insecticides without licence. Against the said order of the Chief Agricultural Officer, cancelling the licence of the firm, an appeal under Section 15 of the Act was filed. The Joint Director, Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh, being the appellate Authority, vide order dated 6.3.1995, copy Annexure P1, found that the unregistered insecticides were inadvertently sent by the manufacturer to the firm and that no material had been sold out of the same by the dealer. It was further found that dealer was not at fault. Accordingly, the licence of the dealer for selling insecticides was restored by the appellate authority. 21. In Ram Murti Gupta v. State of Punjab, 1995(1) RCR 116, the criminal complaint against the dealer was quashed as the appellate authority had given a finding that the dealer was not at fault. Reliance was placed on the law laid down in the case reported as Birbal v. State of Punjab, 1993(1) RCR 687 and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, in M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar v. Chief Agricultural Officer and another, 1990 SCC (Crl.) 623. Similarly in Yogesh Sood v. State of Punjab, 1994(3) RCR 394, this court had quashed the complaint against the dealer as the appellate authority under the Insecticides Act had restored the licence with the observation that the accused was not a fault. In this authority also reliance was placed on Birbals case (supra) and M/s Kisan Beej Bhandars case (supra) as also Ram Murti Guptas case (supra). Similarly in M/s Siri Ram Sat Paul v. The State of Punjab, 1992(1) RCR 613, it was held by this Court that when the licence of the petitioner had been restored, there hardly remains any justification for the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner. 22. In view of the law laid down in the above mentioned authorities, in my opinion, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon against the accused petitioner No. 1 M/s Vaishno Brothers, being the dealer and petitioners No. 1 to 4, being the partners of the said firm, are liable to be quashed, being the abuse of the process of the law. Hence quashed. All the above mentioned cases stand disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.