Salil Singhal, Managing Director, Pesticides India Ltd.and anr. vs State of Haryana

G. S. Chahal, J.

Salil Singhal, Managing Director, Pesticides India Limited and Pawan Kumar, Proprietor of 14/s. Nand Lal and Sons have come to this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing of the complaint titled as, Haryana State v. M/s. Naveen Beej Bhandar etc. for offences under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, Annexure P. 1.

According to the averments made in the complaint Annexure P11, on December 16, 1987, Mr. Baldev Amar, who exercises powers of Insecticides Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Naveen Beej Bhandar Panipat, a firm which is a licencee for stock and sale of insecticides. From that premises, he took a sample of Isoproturon 50 WP having 50% concentration. ''The Isoproturon was manufactured by a firm M/s. Pesticides India Limited and it was distributed by M/s. Nand Lal and Sons. The sample was divided into three portions and were properly sealed in the presence of Mohan Lal. One portion of the sample was given to the Proprietor of that firm. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control (insecticides) Laboratory, Karnal. On analysis, the same was found to be 37.9% Isoproturon instead of 50%. The insecticide was thus, misbranded. A showcause notice and the analysis report was sent to M/s. Naveen Beej Bhandar, Panipat, and they submitted the reply, Annexure P5. With respect to the liability of the petitioners and M/s. Naveen Beej Bhandar, the following averments were made :

"That the accused No. 1 has stocked and sold misbranded insecticides whereas the accused No. 2 has distributed misbranded insecticides and accused Nos. 3 and 4 manufactured misbranded insecticides. Thereby all the accused Nos. 1 to 4 committed offence under Section 29(l)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968".

The petitioners challenge this prosecution on the basis that no notice, as required under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, was served on them. It is also further not shown that how Salil Singhal was responsible for the production of the insecticides.

In the return filed, it has been stated that the petitioner No. 1 being the Managing Director of M/s. Pesticides India Limited, was the incharge and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business at the time of commission of the offence and as such shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and was liable to be proceeded against. That no notice under Section 24(3) of the Act was required to be sent to the petitioners. In Trilok Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 195 : 1991(1) CLR 367 dealing with the scope, of Section 24(2) and (4) of the Act, Grewal J., relying upon the observation of a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in YRS Rao v. Deputy Director of Agriculture and others, 1980 Crl. LJ 1364 and of this Court in H. Lange v. The State of Punjab, 1986(1) Recent C.R. 176 , held that there is no obligation of the Insecticides Inspector to. supply a copy of the report of the analyst to the manufacturer of the insecticides but if the manufacturer of insecticide is sought to be prosecuted, there is no reason why a copy of the report should not be supplied to him. The object of making the provision for delivery of the copy of the report is to give an opportunity to the person concerned to controvert the report in case he, is prosecuted. Relying upon the above proposition, I accept the contention of the learned counsel that both the petitioners had been deprived of their right to rebut the report and thus deprived of their defence. This will be a fact which will weight heavily against the prosecution at the trial and the trial of the complaint cannot end in any conviction.

The complaint is significantly silent as to bow Salil Singhal is responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. If an offence is committed by a company then provisions of Section 33 of the Act have to be complied with There being no such allegations against Salil Singhal, his prosecution is bad in law. The continuation of the complaint in these circumstances, will amount to abuse of process of Court.

I hereby accept the petition and quash the complaint Annexure P.1 and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner.