- (1.) THE learned counsel appearing of the petitioners submit that the petitioners have came forward with this petition seeking to quashed the proceedings initiated against them in STC No. 1772 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani for the alleged offence under Section 29(a)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
(2.) MR. V. Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the prosecution has been initiated against the petitioners by mentioning their individual name and also mentioning their designation in respect of the Company namely Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Ltd. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per provision 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, the prosecution is bound to obtain sanction against each one of the accuse mentioning specifically their names. But, as far as the instant case in concerned, the prosecution admittedly obtained sanction only against the Company that is namely Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Ltd., and the Trader who has been arrayed as A-3 in this case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners than the petitioners have been arrayed as A-1 and A-2. The learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution having not obtained any individual sanction as far as he petitioners who have been arrayed as A-1 and A-2, the proceedings initiated as against them is liable to be quashed in view of the specific provision contained under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on decision of the Honourable Apex Court in (2000) 2 MWN (Crl) 241 and another decision of Rajasthan High Court in 1991 Crl. L.J. 2645. Per contra, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended than the complainant has obtained sanction against the company and for the Company, the petitioners namely A-1 and A-3 have been in charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs and as such the sanction obtained against the Company itself is sufficient and there is no illegality and infirmity in the sanction and as such no ground is made out by the petitioners to quash the proceedings.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the respondent by placing reliance on the provision under Section 33 of the act relaying to the offences by companies, it is contended that for an offence committed by a Company every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, or was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and as such the sanction obtained against the company itself is sufficient. The learned Central Government Standing counsel also placed reliance on a decision reported in 1985 Crl. L.J. 187. I have heard the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned complaint and the other materials available on record.;