HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by R. C. Gupta, Accountant, M/s. Pesto Chemicals India Limited for quashing the complaint Annexure P/1 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioner and others in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this petition are that on 15.1.1988 Shri Jagdish Chander Sharma, Ex.Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sonepat inspected the premises of M/s. Dutta Brothers, Murthal Mandi, District Sonepat, along with Shri Mahavir Singh Dahiya, Circle Agriculture Officer and drew three samples of BHC 10% in the prescribed manner. One sealed sample was sent to Senior Analyst of Karnal Insecticides Laboratory for analysis and the Senior Analytical Chemist vide his report informed that the sample did not conform to the active ingredients and Sieve Test requirement. A complaint was, thus, filed for the offences under Sections 3-K and 18(1) and (c) of the Insecticides Act, 1960, (for short 'the Act') against Shri Sudhir Dutt and the present petitioner. The petitioner alleged that he was working as an accountant with M/s. Pesto Chemicals India Limited, New Delhi, and was looking after the financial matters of the company. He had nothing to do with manufacturing of quality control of the products manufactured by the company. Initiation of criminal proceedings against him by institution of complaint Annexure P/1 was an abuse of the process of the Court. He further averred that M/s. Pesto Chemicals India had not supplied any material to M/s. Dutta Brothers, Murthal. Whatever material was supplied by the company was sent to the office of Locust Control and Plant Protection Officer, Department of Agriculture, Haryana, at Chandigarh, vide an invoice dated 28.4.1987 and it was not known as to how M/s. Dutta Brothers Murthal got the material of BHS 10% of Batch No. 656 when the supply was made by the company to the Government Department. Moreover, he was neither in charge of nor responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and no proceedings could be initiated against him. Under Section 33 of the Act he or any other employee could not be prosecuted unless the proceedings were launched against the company also. The liability of an employee could arise only when the master was found guilty. The complaint could not proceed against him in the absence of the principal offender i.e. the company.
(3.) IN the reply submitted by the respondent it was maintained that Shri R. C. Gupta was the Sales Manager of M/s. Pesto Chemicals India Limited and he was responsible for the conduct of its business. Proceedings were rightly initiated against him.;