Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Lal And Etc. vs The State And Ors. on 21 March, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1989CRILJ1976
ORDER S.S. Grewal, J.
1. All the three petitions, viz. Criminal Misc. No. 6685-M of 1988 (Mohan Lal v. State and Ors.), Criminal Misc. No. 7566-M of 1988 (Ravinder Kumar and Anr. v. State and Ors.), and, Criminal Misc. No. 7569-M of 1988 (Amar Lal and Anr. v. State and Ors.), under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') relate to quashment of complaints under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33, punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), filed by the Insecticide Inspector (Chief Agricultural Officer), Ferozepore, and, the consequent proceedings taken on the said complaints, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore. As common question of law and fact is involved in all the three petitions, these shall be disposed of by one judgment.
2. In brief the facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions, are, that the petitioners in all the three petitions were partners of their respective firms, and, held licences for the sale of insecticides at Mandi Abohar. Samples of Methyl Parathion 50% EC of 250 ml. packing, Aldrin 30% EC of 500 ml. packing, and, Cypermethrin 10% EC of 250 ml. packing, were duly taken by the Insecticide Inspector. Abohar, from the premises of the respective licencee firms on different dates. On analysis, the said samples did not conform 10 the specifications with respect to percentage and active ingredient contents. The complaints were, accordingly, filed against the petitioners, other partners of the licencee firms, as well as, the manufacturers of the aforesaid insecticides.
3. These facts have also been admitted by the Stale in its reply. Preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State that the charge in the aforesaid complaints has not yet been framed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, and, the said Court is competent to discharge the accused, in case no material is found out at this stage, and, even could, subsequently, acquit them after recording evidence.
4. This plea is hardly tenable. In view of the facts and circumstances, there does not seem to be any legal bar to quash the proceedings even at this stage. I am fortified in my view by the authority in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi , wherein, it was observed that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code.
5. The counsel for the parties were heard.
6. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were not liable for any offence for contravention of the provisions of the Act, or, the rules framed thereunder, inasmuch as, they were mere licencees, and, had acquired the insecticides in question from duly licenced manufacturers, distributors, or, dealers thereof, and, neither knew, nor, could with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the insecticides, in any way, contravened any of the provisions of the Act, and, that the insecticides, while in their possession, were properly stored and remained in the same state as when they had acquired them. Reference in this context was made to Section 30(3) of the Act, which, corresponds to Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Reliance in this respect has also rightly been placed on the single Bench authority of this Court, reported as Madan Lal v. State of Punjab 1982 FAJ 40, where the petitioner, who had a valid licence to carry on the trade in drugs, was found in possession of tablets of Dexametha Sone, which were found to be of non-standard quality, misbranded and adulterated, as it did not contain even a trace of the active ingredients of Dexametha Sone. The petitioner had been able to prove that the drugs had been purchased by him from a licensed dealer under a written warranty signed by the said dealer. The trial Magistrate, after examining the prosecution witness, charged him of the offence under Section 18(a) (i),(ii), and (iia) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was held therein that the petitioner had satisfied the requirement of Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and, he could not be convicted of the offence under Section 18(a) (i), (ii) and (iia) of the said Act.
7. Apart from that there are no specific allegations either against the petitioners, or, Directors, or, partners of the manufacturing companies or firms, that they were in overall control of the business of the manufacturing companies, or, the firms, and, in the absence of such allegations, they could not be prosecuted, and, the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, are liable to be quashed
8. I am supported in my view by the aforecited authority Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi 1983 Cri LJ 159, wherein it was held:
...the complaint clearly contains the allegations regarding the sample taken by the Inspector from a shop which was sent to the Public Analyst, was manufactured by the Company in question and that the Public Analyst found the samples to be adulterated. The Complaint was filed against the Company, its Directors and the Manager. So far as the Directors are concerned there is not even a whisper nor a shred of evidence nor anything to show, apart from the presumption drawn by the complainant, that there is any act committed by the directors from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that they could also be vicariously liable. In these circumstances therefore, it can be said that no case against the Directors has been made out ex facie on the allegations made in the complaint and the proceedings against them were rightly quashed by the High Court.
9. In the instant case Sarvshri R.P. Gupta and V. K. Pehwa, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Misc. No. 7569-M of 1988, who, were working as marketing and Regional Managers, respectively, of M/s Tropical Agro-Systems Private Limited, Madras, and, Sh. Hanuman Sharma, Marketing Manager of M/s Agro Chemicals, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, respondent No. 2 in Criminal Misc. No. 7566-M of 1988, would be deemed to be directly incharge of the affairs of the manufacturing companies, and, would not fall in the category of Directors. From the very nature of their duties, it can be safely inferred that the said respondents, as Managers of the manufacturing companies, would be liable to be prosecuted under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33, punishable under Section 29 of the Act, read with Rule 27(5) of the Rules, and, the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, on the aforesaid complaints, filed by the Insecticide Inspector, are not liable to be quashed
10. I find further support in my view from the aforecited authority Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi 1983 Cri LJ 159, wherein, dealing with this aspect of the case, it was held as under:
However, the Manager of the Company who is directly incharge of its affairs, could not fall in the same category as the Directors. It could not be reasonably argued that no case is made out against the Manager because from the very nature of his duties, it is manifest that he must be in the knowledge about the affairs of the sale and manufacture of the disputed sample. From the very nature of his duties it can be safely inferred that the Manager would undoubtedly be vicariously liable for the offence; vicarious liability being an incident of an offence under the Act. Hence the order of the High Court quashing the proceedings against the Manager is liable to be set aside.
11. For the foregoing reasons. Criminal Misc. No. 6685-M of 1988 (Mohan Lal v. State and Ors.) is allowed and the complaint filed in that case, as well as, the subsequent proceedings against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 to 6, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, are ordered to be quashed. In Criminal Misc. No. 7566-M of 1988 (Ravinder Kumar Jain and Anr. v. State and Ors.) the complaint against the petitioners, as well as, against Sh. R.P. Gupta (respondent No. 3), partner of M/s National Farm Chemicals, Karampura, New Delhi, arid the subsequent proceedings taken against them, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, are ordered to be quashed, whereas, the said Court would proceed with the said case according to law, as far as Hanuman Sharma, respondent No. 2, is concerned. Criminal Misc. No. 7566-M of 1988 (Ravinder Kumar Jain and Anr. v. State and Ors.) is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. In Criminal Misc. No. 7569-M of 1988 (Amar Lal and Anr. v. State and Ors.) the complaint, as well as, subsequent proceedings taken thereon, against both the petitioners, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, are directed to be quashed, whereas, the said court would proceed with and dispose of the case, according to law, as far as Sarvshri R.P. Gupta and V. K. Pehwa, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, are concerned. This petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
12. A copy of this order is directed to be sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, for compliance.