JUDGMENT : Indira Jain, J. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicant seeks quashing of Summary Criminal Case No. 149/2003 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar, District Buldhana and the order of issuance of process passed in the said proceedings on 20/3/2003. 2. Facts as are necessary for deciding the application may be stated as follows : Applicant Hindustan Unilever Limited, formerly known as Hindustan Lever Limited, is a public limited Company, duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent no.1 was appointed as a Quality Control Inspector and designated as an Agriculture Officer. By virtue of his appointment to the post, he was appointed as Seeds Inspector under Section 13 of the Seeds Act, 1966. Respondent no.1 filed Summary Criminal Case No. 149/2003 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar stating therein that on 19/5/2002 he visited M/s. Sampada Krishi Kendra, Sarafa Galli, Mehkar. Respondent no.2 Shri A.N. Saoji was present. Respondent no.1 took sample of Soyabeen JS335 seeds. He noticed that applicant did not comply with the standards prescribed under the Seeds Act, 1966 and Rules framed thereunder. According to complainant, germination percentage was reported to be 48% against 70% and physical purity was 98%. It was alleged in the complaint that the seeds were not in accordance with the standard prescribed in law and applicant committed offence under Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966 and contravention of Clause 23(g) of the Seeds Rules, 1968. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process vide order dated 20/3/2003. Being aggrieved, applicant has challenged the proceedings in the criminal case and also the order of issuance of process. 3. Shri A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for applicant, vehemently submits that prosecution launched by respondent no.1 is ex facie unsustainable and continuance of the same would lead to a manifest abuse of the process of law. Learned Counsel submits that the order of issuance of process was passed without application of mind. The said order is cryptic and without reasons. The complaint presented by respondent no.1 does not disclose that applicant has committed any offence. It is pointed out that criminal proceedings came to be initiated against the Managing Director of applicant Company without stating the name of applicant Company as an accused in the complaint. The said order is cryptic and without reasons. The complaint presented by respondent no.1 does not disclose that applicant has committed any offence. It is pointed out that criminal proceedings came to be initiated against the Managing Director of applicant Company without stating the name of applicant Company as an accused in the complaint. It is submitted that in case of an offence by Company, only such persons can be made liable, who are in-charge of and responsible to the Company at the relevant time when the offence was committed. It is submitted that other person connected with the Company does not fall within the ambit of criminal liability. Learned Counsel states that there is no whisper in the complaint even to remotely suggest that Managing Director was responsible for the commission of alleged offence. He submits that Company was not joined as a party to the complaint and in the absence of Company being arrayed as an accused, prosecution would not be sustainable. In support of the submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited { (2012) 5 SCC 661 } and the decision of this Court in Criminal Application No. 871/2007, dated 9/9/2008. 4. Another contention raised on behalf of applicant is that prosecution was barred by limitation and in view of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the cognizance. 5. Per contra, Shri Tembhare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no.1, strongly supports the order passed by the trial Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that complaint makes out a prima facie case to proceed and, therefore, order of issuance of process was passed by the learned Magistrate after considering material placed on record. 6. On perusal of complaint, it can be seen that Managing Director is arrayed as accused no.1 and Shri A.N. Saoji is made as accused no.2. Applicant is not arrayed as an accused in the complaint. 6. On perusal of complaint, it can be seen that Managing Director is arrayed as accused no.1 and Shri A.N. Saoji is made as accused no.2. Applicant is not arrayed as an accused in the complaint. In the case of Aneeta Hada (supra), the core issue emerged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether Company could have been made liable for prosecution without being impleaded as an accused and whether the Directors could have been prosecuted for offences punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Indian Penal Code and Information and Technology Act, 2000. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arraigning of a Company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that decision of the Larger Bench in State of Madras v. C.V. Parekh (1971) SCC (Cri) 97 is a binding precedent and judgments, which had not followed the same, were overruled. The decision in Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of M.P. {(1984) SCC (Cri) 620} was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that it does not correctly lay down the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also overruled the decision in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. (2001 SCC (Cri) 174) with the qualifier as far as it states that the Director or any other Officer can be prosecuted without impleadment of the Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the matter would stand on a different footing where there is some legal impediment and the doctrine of lex non cogit ad impossibilia gets attracted. 7. On the same lines, this Court in Criminal Application No.871/2007 held on 9/9/2008 that the offences under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 are attributed to Company and its Directors, who are the persons in-charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of business as well as the Company are impleaded by name so that process is issued against such individuals for specific offences punishable under the Act and Rules. Since this was not done, the criminal proceedings were quashed in respect of some of the accused. 8. When it comes to the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966, Section 21 is important. Since this was not done, the criminal proceedings were quashed in respect of some of the accused. 8. When it comes to the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966, Section 21 is important. It relates to the offences by Companies. According to this Section, where an offence is committed under the Seeds Act, 1966 by a Company, every person, who at the time the offence was committed was in-charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of 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. Section 21 is mandatory and strict construction of penal provisions keeping in view legislative intendment is necessary. This makes it crystal clear that unless Company is arrayed as an accused, prosecution only against the Managing Director would not be tenable. 9. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for applicant regarding limitation is concerned, provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will have to be looked into. The offence alleged in complaint is under Section 7(b) punishable under Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966. Punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the period of limitation in such a case would be one year as per Clause (b) of subsection (2). Learned Counsel for applicant referred to Clause (a) of subsection (2) and submitted that the period of limitation would be six months. An Analyser's report in the present case was received on 5/7/2002 and prosecution was launched on 19/3/2003, i.e. after around eight months. The offence is not punishable only with fine, but it is punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. In such a situation, clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 468 would be attracted and not clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 468 as submitted by learned Counsel for applicant. This Court, therefore, does not find that the prosecution launched in the present case was barred by limitation and rejects the contention raised on behalf of applicant to this extent. 10. This Court, therefore, does not find that the prosecution launched in the present case was barred by limitation and rejects the contention raised on behalf of applicant to this extent. 10. The next important point urged on behalf of applicant is that the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate on 20/3/2003 is sans reasons. The order reads as under : "Complaint is presented by Agriculture Officer. It be registered as Sum. Cril. Case. Accused is absent. Issue process against accused under Section 19 Seeds Act." On perusal of the order, it can be seen that it is a classic illustration of non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate even did not scrutinise contents of the complaint, leave aside the material documents available on record. The order is cryptic and suffers from manifest error in issuing process against the accused. Needless to state that criminal law is set into motion by filing a complaint, but the Magistrate is duty-bound to find out from the contents in the complaint and the documents annexed thereto whether there is a case to summon the accused. The learned Magistrate almost abdicated his duty while passing the order of issuance of process and the same being not a reasoned order, does not stand in law. 11. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that as Company is not arrayed as an accused and Magistrate failed to pass a reasoned order, criminal proceedings and the order therein deserve to be set aside. Hence, the following order : (i) Criminal application is allowed. (ii) Summary Criminal Case No.149/2003 and the order of issuance of process dated 20/3/2003 therein are quashed and set aside. (iii) The complaint filed by respondent no.1 stands dismissed. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Application allowed.