Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Agarwal Agencies And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ3426
Author: N.N. Mathur
Bench: N.N. Mathur
ORDER N.N. Mathur, J.
1. By way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek to quash the order dated 8-1-1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga taking cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sections 17 and 18 read with Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20th Jan., 1994 Insecticides Inspector Shri Mani Ram Tomar collected sample of methyl parathion 2% D. P. from the shop of M/s. Agarwal Agencies, Mandi Goluwala. The Insecticide Analyst found the sample to be mixed-branded. He sent a report under communication dated 17-3-1994. The learned Magistrate issued the process against the petitioners by order dated 28-11-1996.
3. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings against them on number of grounds. It is inter alia contended that according to Section 33 of the Act only those persons can be held guilty for the offence under the Act committed by the company who at the time of the commission of such offence, was incharge of, or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. It is submitted that there must be a clear averment in the complaint that the person, against whom the complaint is filed, was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company at the time when the sample was taken but in the instant case there is no such averment in the complaint and that there is no allegation that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of the Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company. The only allegation, made against the petitioners in Paragraph 13 of the complaint, reads as under :
(Vernacular matter omitted)
4. In order to appreciate the contention, it will be convenient to acquaint with Section 33 of the Act, which reads as follows :--
"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 incharge 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 sub-section 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 sub-section (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 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."
The provision clearly spells out that when offence is alleged to have committed by the company the other person, who at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, beside the company shall deemed to have committed the offence. It is evident from plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act that merely being a responsible person is not enough, he should be responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the said company. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 further makes it clear that when it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance, which can be attributed to any neglect on the part of the Director, Manager, Secretary or other person of the company, he shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the present petitioners were anywhere responsible to the company for the conduct, of business. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court and same are liable to be quashed. As the petition deserves to be succeeded on this count alone, it is not necessary to examine other points raised by the petitioners.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners being Criminal Case No. 143/1996 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pilibanga, for offence under Sections 17 and 18 read with Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 stand quashed.