Vyapak Puri vs State of Punjab and anr..

G.S. Chahal, J.

This judgment will dispose of two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 1360M of 1990 and 1362M of 1990 since the same law point is involved therein.

Vyapak Puri, petitioner seeks the quashing of the complaint instituted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for offences under Sections 17, 18, 3(k)(i) and 33 of the Insecticide Act and the subsequent proceedings. The facts are being drawn from the complaint covered by Cr. M. 1360M of 1990. According to the facts stated in the impugned complaint, Annexure P1, Surjit Singh, InsecticideInspector, Abohar, on 1671987, visited the shop of Rameshwar of M/s Goyal Traders Abohar who is authorised dealer of M/s. Kisan Agro Chemicals Unit of M/s. Puri Agro Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Muzaffarnagar (U.P.). In presence of Rameshwar, a sample of Aldrin 30% EC of batch No. 405, manufactured by Kisan Agro Chemicals was drawn. It was divided into three parts and seizure memo was prepared. It was put into polythene bags separately. The dealer, when asked, refused to affix his own seal. One of the samples was handed over to him. One sample was sent to Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. After analysis thereof, it was found that the sample did not conform to ISI Specification and contained only 15.03% active ingredient contents instead of 30% and was, thus, misbranded under Section 3(k)(i) of the Act. A copy of the analysis report was delivered to the dealer, vide a copy of the letter. This misbranded insecticide was supplied by M/s. Puri Brothers, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and the offence had been committed by the dealer, the supplier and the manufacturer. Vyapak Puri was impleaded as an accused, being a partner of M/s. Kisan Agro Chemicals Unit of M/s. Puri Agro Chemical Pvt Ltd., Muzaffarnagar.

The impugned complaint is significantly silent, as to how Vyapak Puri was incharge of the business of the Company or was responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. Moreover, the Company has not been impleaded as one of the accused. On this basis, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not become liable under Section 33 of the Act. Section 33 reads as follows :

Section 33. Offences by Companies : (1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the 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 :

Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed, without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly,

Explanation : For the purpose of this section :

(a) Company," means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

(b) "director" in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.

......."

In order to make the petitioner liable, it has to be alleged that when the offence was committed by the Company, he was incharge or responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. On this short ground, the petitioner is entitled to get the impugned proceedings quashed. I hereby allow both the aforementioned criminal miscellaneous and quash both the impugned complaints qua the petitioner.

JUDGMENT accordingly.