TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant - 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 under the Act. Filing of such undertaking with the Respondent is not disputed. Further, from the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 1 2 and other material placed on record, no case is made out to quash the proceedings at this stage, by accepting the plea of the Appellants that the procedure contemplated Under Section 24(4) of the Act and Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not followed. With regard to the procedure Under Section 24(4) of the Act, after the 1st Appellant - Company has deposited necessary Demand Draft for sending 2nd sample to the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, steps were taken promptly and report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able 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, Quality Control Inspector, Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, Punjab inspected the premises of M/s. Dhillon Kheti Store in the presence of its sole Proprietor, Shri Nishan Singh. The said Nishan Singh was the authorised dealer for 1st Appellant - Company, to sell its insecticides. At the time of inspection, the inspecting officer found six boxes containing 25 packets each, of Piroxofop Propanyl (Clodinafop Propargyl 15% WP), with each packet weighing 160 grams, stocked in the premises. From the abovesaid stock, samples were drawn and one of the samples was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. When the report dated 15.01.2014 was received, active ingredient of Piroxofop Propanyl was found only to the extent of 11.72% as against the labelled declarati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of the alleged offence. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, Castrol India Limited v. State of Karnataka and Anr. 2018 (17) SCC 275, and also another judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi 2019 (17) SCC 193. 6(b). It is also further contended by the learned Counsel that before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint, learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure, contemplated Under Section 24(4) of the Act and Section 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 Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Filing of such undertaking with the Respondent is not disputed. Even, at Para 5.10 in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, it is pleaded by the Respondents that by appointing persons responsible for affairs of the Company, quality control, etc., 2nd Appellant - Managing Director cannot escape his liability from offences committed by 1st Appellant - Company. In view of the specific provision in the Act dealing with the offences by companies, which fixes the responsibility and the responsible person of the Company for conduct of its business, by making bald and vague allegations, 2nd Appellant - Managing Director cannot be prosecuted on vague allegation that he being the Managing Director of the 1st Appellant - Company, is overall responsible person for the conduct of the business of the Company and of quality control, etc. In the instant case, the Company has passed a resolution, fixing responsibility of one of the Managers namely Mr. Madhukar R. Gite by way of a resolution and the same was furnished to the Respondents by the 2nd Appellant in shape of an undertaking on 22.01.2013. When furnishing of such undertaking fixing the responsibility of the quality control of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, in cases where Accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of such Magistrate, is to ensure that innocents are not harassed 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 is always open for the Magistrate to issue process on such complaint which is supported by documents. In any event, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel that proceedings are to be quashed only on the ground that, the Magistrate has taken cognizance without conducting inquiry and or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
