Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nitin Verma, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State of U.P.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 8976 of 2004 under Sections 29 (1)(a) of Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1968"), Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad.
(3.) It is submitted that Managing Director of M/s Indofil Chemical Company was made an accused in a complaint filed under Section 29 (1)(a) of Act, 1968 on the ground that Insecticide seized at the sale premises of accused-1 Rishipal Singh, was sub-standard and, therefore, Company was indulged in manufacturing of sub-standard insecticide and has committed an offence under Section 29(1)(a) of Act, 1968. Complainant has not impleaded 'Company' at all and only Managing Director has been implicated though manufacturer is the Company and if no offence is said to have been committed by Company, vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon Managing Director of the Company, hence, prosecution of only Managing Director of Company is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on a Supreme Court's judgement in Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane, 2015 12 SCC 781.;