9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aryana at Chandigarh, aggrieved by the Order dated 12.05.2020. By the aforesaid order, the Petitioners' application of quashing of Complaint No. 313 dated 19.08.2015, filed by the Respondent No. 2 - The Quality Control Inspector, Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, Punjab for offences Under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33, punishable Under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act"), was dismissed. The petition was allowed by the High Court for other Accused, who was working as Godown Incharge, and quashed the proceedings. 3. The 1st Appellant is a Company, having its office in Mumbai, which is engaged in manufacturing of insecticides. The 2nd Appellant was the Ex-Managing Director of the Company. On 31.12.2013, Qualit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Laboratory, which has reported that the sample was misbranded as the same was found to contain 10.09% of active ingredient only as against 15%, as labelled on the packet. After obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority, a complaint was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate to prosecute the Appellants and other Accused for offences Under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33, punishable Under Section 29 of the Act. 4. The Appellants and other Accused approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the said complaint on various grounds. By impugned order, High Court has dismissed the petition, so far as Appellants are concerned, and allowed the application for the Godown Watchman. 5. Heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that though, the Appellants are not residing within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, without making proper inquiry and ordering investigation, cognizance of the offence is taken. Further, it is submitted that the prosecution against the Appellants, is nothing but abuse of the process of law. The High Court has not considered various grounds raised by the Appellants in proper perspective and dismissed their application for quashing the complaint. In support of his argument that the Magistrate has not followed the procedure Under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness 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. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that on behalf of the 1st Appellant - Company, 2nd Appellant - Managing Director has furnished an undertaking dated 22.01.2013, indicating that Shri Madhukar R. Gite, Manager of the Company, has been nominated in the resolution passed by the Company on 28.12.2012 to be in charge of and responsible to the said Company, to maintain the quality of the pesticides manufactured by the said Company and he was authorized to exercise all such powers and to take all such steps, as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission of any offence u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esponsible person of the Company, as well as the Company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against. Though, the Managing Director is overall incharge of the affairs of the company, whether such officer is to be prosecuted or not, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the relevant provisions of law. Having regard to specific provision Under Section 33 of the Act, and the undertaking filed in the present case, Respondent cannot prosecute the 2nd Appellant herein. Thus, we find force in the contention of Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, that allowing the prosecution against 2nd Appellant - Managing Director is nothing but, abuse of the process of law. At the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unnecessarily. By virtue of proviso to Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. Further, by virtue of Section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure, report of the Government Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence. The Code of Criminal Procedure itself provides for exemption from examination of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant. In the present case, 2nd Respondent/Public Servant, in exercise of powers under provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968, has filed complaint, enclosing several documents including reports of the Government Laboratories, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
