V.M.JAIN,J - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon.
(2.) STATE of Punjab through its Insecticides Inspector had filed criminal complaint dated 6.4.1995 under the aforesaid offences against 4 persons namely (1) Kirpal Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Paul Pesticide, (dealer) (2) Surinder Kumar, partner of M/s. Pest Control Service (distributor), (3) Surinder N. Desai, Assistant Manager Quality Control, and (4) C.S. Shoran, Sales Manager; both of M/s Cynamid India Limited (manufacturer). In the complaint, it was alleged that M/s. Paul Pesticides was dealing in the pesticides/insecticides and that on 8.6.1994 the Insecticides Inspector alongwith others had gone to the shop of M/s. Paul Pesticide, Ferozepur City and had drawn the sample of the insecticide, which was manufactured in October 1993 with expiry date of April, 1995 from 1 kg. packing, manufactured by M/s. Cynamid India Limited. It was alleged that one part of the sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, S.I.L. Bhatinda and as per the report of the Senior Analyst, the sample did not conform to the I.S. specifications, with respect to its percentage active ingredient content, which was found to be 8.9% instead of 10% and as such the sample was declared misbranded. It was alleged that the copy of the test report was delivered to the dealer as also to the distributor and manufacturer. It was further alleged that M/s. Paul Pesticide had committed the offence (being the dealer) and M/s Cynamid India Ltd. and M/s. Pest Control Service had also committed the offence, being manufacturer and supplier/distributor. It was alleged that necessary sanction/consent had been obtained for prosecuting the accused firms and persons.
(3.) ON the basis of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate summoned the accused persons. In the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by accused C.P. Shoran, it has been inter alia alleged that in the complaint there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was the incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its manufacturing unit. It was alleged that C.P. Shoran, petitioner, was working just as Sales Manager of M/s. Cynamid India Ltd., at the time when the sample was taken from M/s. Paul Pesticide, Ferozepur and that petitioner was not incharge and responsible for the quality control of the company rather he was incharge of distribution and supply, being Sales Manager of the company. It was alleged that the complaint had been filed against the petitioner without even implicating the company as an accused.;