Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1028 (PNJ)

Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Punjab

2005-09-26

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This petition under Sec.482 of the Code of criminal Procedure has been filed by 12 accused for quashing of complaint filed under Section,3- K (l), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as the Act)and Rule 10 (1) of the insecticide Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) Rule 27 (5)of the Rules and for quashing all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the manufacturing company and petitioner No.2 is its Commercial Manager, who is representing it, being its nominee and responsible person. Petitioner Nos.3 to 12 are the other employees of the petitioner No.1 company. They are not the persons in-charge of or responsible to the conduct of its business. 3. In this case on 15.6.1994. a sample of monocrotphos 36% SL was taken by the Insecticide Inspector, mansa from the shop of M/ s. Jherianwali khad Bhandar, Mansa. The said product was manufactured by the petitioner company. On analysis by the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, the said sample was found to be misbranded, as it did not conform to ISI specifications in its active ingredients and instead of 36% SL, the active ingredients were found to the extent of 28.69%. Subsequently, after obtaining necessary permission for prosecution, the Insecticide Inspector filed the aforesaid complaint in the Court of judicial Magistrate, Mansa on 27.3.1995 against the present petitioners and M/ s. Jehrianwali Khad Bhandar, Mansa, the dealer. 4. After recording pre-charge evidence, on 16.9.1999, the Chief Judicial magistrate, Mansa framed charges against all the accused. Against the petitioner Company and its employees, the following charge was framed:- "that all accused B. D. Gupta, r. C. Kapoor, R. K. Sharma, P. K. Gupta, Jugal Kishore Gupta, banwari Lal Gupta, Kedar Lal gupta (sic) Limited B-144 Road no.9 Vishwa Karma Industrial area Jaipur represented by d. B. Gupta under Sec.305 cr. P. C. had manufactured above and then sold such mis-branded insecticide to accused thereby you all have committed violation of Sections 17 and 18 of 1968 which is offence punishable under Sec.29 read with Sec.33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and within my cognizance. " After framing of the charge, the instant petition has been filed. 5 At the outset, counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not want to press this petition qua petitioner nos.1 and 2. " After framing of the charge, the instant petition has been filed. 5 At the outset, counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not want to press this petition qua petitioner nos.1 and 2. Regarding petitioner Nos.3 to 12, he submitted that they are officebearers and employees of the manufacturing company, who are neither in-charge of nor responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. He further submitted that petitioner No.2 was the nominee and responsible person of the Company being its Commercial Manager. Counsel for the petitioners contended that even the Chief Agricultural officer has made endorsement of the letter Annexure P-l to the effect that Shri d. B. Gupta (petitioner No.2) who has been nominated by the Company shall be the responsible officer under the provisions of Sec.33 of the Act. Further, he refers to Annexure P4/a, which is a principal Certificate issued under the rules, which indicates that petitioner No.2 is responsible person of the manufacturing company under Sec.31 (1) of the Act. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that inspite of the fact that petitioner No.2 was the only person who was in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, the insecticides Inspector obtained permission to prosecute petitioner Nos.3 to 12 unnecessarily with oblique motive and the complaint was filed against them. Counsel further submitted that in precharge evidence, the complainant examined only two witnesses, namely PW-I amarjit Lal and PW-2 Gurditta Singh, both ADOs, Insecticide Inspector, Mansa. Copies of their statements have been annexed with the petition as Annexure p-5 and P-6. In their statements, both the witnesses have stated that it is correct that the Chief Agricultural Officer had written to proceed only against petitioner no.2 vide Ex. PF being the nominee and responsible person of the company. In their statements, it has not been stated that the petitioner Nos.3 to 12 are the persons in-charge of and responsible to the conduct of the business of the company. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts, counsel for the petitioners submitted that framing of charge against petitioner Nos.3 to 12 and continuation of proceedings against them is totally abuse of the process of law, as these powers have been unnecessarily dragged without there being any allegation against them. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts, counsel for the petitioners submitted that framing of charge against petitioner Nos.3 to 12 and continuation of proceedings against them is totally abuse of the process of law, as these powers have been unnecessarily dragged without there being any allegation against them. The person from whose business premises the sample was taken, the manufacturing company and B. D. Gupta, being in-charge of and responsible person to the conduct of the business of the company are facing trial, but petitioner nos.3 to 12 have been unnecessarily facing prosecution and there is no material against them, on the basis of which even the charge could have been framed against them. 7. Counsel for the respondent-State could not dispute the factual position. In the reply, filed on behalf of Insecticides Inspector, it has been stated that it is correct that the Chief Agricultural officer has made endorsement on the reply filed by petitioner Company that only petitioner No.2 is to be prosecuted being nominee and responsible person of the company. However, the other petitioners were named in the complaint as accused under the orders of the Joint Director (P. P.) Punjab, Chandigarh, who granted permission to launch prosecution against them because petitioner Nos.4 to 8 were the expert staff of the manufacturing company and are responsible for quality of the insecticides which was manufactured. Petitioner Nos.3, 9 to 12 are the persons responsible for the conduct of the business of petitioner No.1 Company, therefore, they all are liable to be prosecuted. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition and reply, I am of the opinion that framing of the charge as well as continuation of the proceedings on the complaint against petitioner Nos.3 to 12 is an abuse of the process of law and the complaint as well as the order of framing charge qua these petitioners are liable to be quashed. In the complaint, it has been mentioned that misbranded insecticide was manufactured and supplied by m/s. Gupta Chemicals Private Limited (petitioner No.1) to accused No.1 with the consent and knowledge and connivance of Sh. B. D. Gupta, Area Manager, sh. R. C. Kapoor, Zonal Manager, R. K. Sharma, Sh. P. K. Gupta, Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar, Sh. Niraj Kumar Jain, Sh. Alok Tripathi, Sh. Prem Narayan Gupta, sh. Jugal Kishore Gupta, Sh. B. D. Gupta, Area Manager, sh. R. C. Kapoor, Zonal Manager, R. K. Sharma, Sh. P. K. Gupta, Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar, Sh. Niraj Kumar Jain, Sh. Alok Tripathi, Sh. Prem Narayan Gupta, sh. Jugal Kishore Gupta, Sh. Banwari Lal gupta, Sh. Kedar Nath Gupta, who are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Except this averment, no role has been attributed to petitioner Nos.3 to 12. Admittedly, in this case, petitioner No.2 was the nominee and responsible person of peti-tioner No.1 Company. At the time of granting permission to the manufacturing company to sell its product in the area of Punjab, petitioner No.2 was accepted as nominee and responsible person of the Company. Not only this, the Chief Agricultural officer has recommended that only petitioner No.2 be prosecuted being nominee and responsible person of the Company. In the pre-charge evidence also, both the witnesses have stated that petitioner No.2 is the nominee and responsible person of the Company. Nothing has been stated against petitioner Nos.3 to 12. There is absolutely no evidence or material, on the basis of which the charge could have been framed against them. In these circumstances, these petitioners should have been discharged. In my opinion, the trial Court was not justified in framing charge against these petitioners. 9. In view of the aforesaid, petition qua petitioner Nos.3 to 12 is allowed and the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings qua them are hereby quashed. However, petition qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed as not pressed. Petition allowed.