V.S.AGGARWAL, J. - (1.)AS per allegations in the first information report a sample of D.A.P. Fertilizers was drawn on 11.7.1985 by Agricultural Inspector Bhag Singh from machine stitched bags bearing the marking of IFFCO (Indian Farmers' Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.). This sample was taken in a polythene paper. The same was sent to the Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. It was found to be not according to the specifications and substandard. It was alleged that it was in violation of clause 19(1)(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.
(2.)THE petitioner seeks quashing of the said first information report against him. The sole ground pressed has been that in the first information report there is no allegation that the petitioner was Incharge of the business or in any way responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business, In that process, it is claimed that in the absence of any such fact, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the alleged offence so contemplated under the Essential Commodities Act. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 reads as under :-
"(1) If the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was incharge of and 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 contravention 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 if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. (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 of the company, such 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."

A perusal of the above said provision shows that where the contravention of the order is made by a Company, then every person who at the time of the contravention was in charge of or was responsible to the Company for conduct of the business of the Company as well as the Company shall be guilty of the said contravention necessarily. The prosecution must show that an employee who is held liable by virtue of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act was in charge of or was responsible to the Company for conduct of the business of the Company. Merely being an employee will not make him liable. There is no such fact alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner was in charge of or was responsible to the Company for conduct of the business of the Company. Being so, taking the assertions of the prosecution on its face value it is clear that no case would be drawn against the petitioner.

(3.)SOMEWHAT similar situation had arisen in the case of B.B. Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) RCR 291. That was a case under the Insecticides Act 1988. The sample of the insecticides was found mis-branded. Sh. B.B. Nagpal was a Secretary of the Company; the assertions made against him were vague. It was concluded that in the absence of any material connecting him with the provisions of Section 13 of the Insecticides Act prosecution qua the said person was liable to be quashed. The position herein is no different. Since it is not shown or alleged that the petitioner was in charge of and responsible to the Company for conduct of the business, proceedings qua the present petitioner pending in the trial Court are liable to be quashed. For these reasons, the petition is allowed and qua the petitioner the proceedings pending before the trial Court are quashed. Petition allowed.