M.C. Jain, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 17-11-89 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar whereby subsistence of the offence was read over to the accused persons and their plea was recorded.
(2.) A complaint under Section 29 (1) (a) of the Insecticides Act. 1969 was presented by the District Agricultural Officer Shri B.K. Jain against M/s. B.L. industries Ltd., and against Shri B.L. Agrawal described as proprietor of the aforesaid concern alongwith two other companies and their proprietors. The allegation was that the insecticide sold was sub-standard. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no allegation in the complaint that Shri B.L. Agrawal was in-charge of it was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business nor there is any allegation that the offence was committed with the consent or any connivance of Shri B.L. Agrawal nor any neglect has been attributed to him. In the absence of such allegations against Shri B.L. Agrawal, the prosecution of Shri B.L. Agrawal is not warranted by law and necessary requirements of Sec. 33 of the Act have not been alleged against him. Counsel for the petitioner referred to the allegation made in the complaint and submitted that Shri B.L. Agrawal has been described as proprietor. Shri B.L. Agrawal is no doubt a Director in the company but in the order to prove the offence committed, the requirements of Section 33 of the Act have to be alleged in to the complaint the Court could not have taken any cognizance of any offence against Shri B.L. Aarawal in the absence of allegations which are necessary under Section 33 of the Act. The learned P.P. has not been able to justify that cognizance has rightly been taken and he has not been able to point out the necessary allegations in the complaint as are required under Section 33 of the Act. In my opinion in the absence of the necessary allegations the prosecution of Shri B.L. Agrawal is bad.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that on furnishing of the report of the insecticides analyst, a prayer was made within 28 days that the petitioner industry intends to produce evidence in controversion of the report and is prepared to get the sample tested by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. In this connection it may be stated that under Sub-section (4) of Section 24, the petitioner industry can move the Court and can get the sample produced before the Magistrate tested by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It would be for the trial Magistrate to examine the matter, if such prayer is made to the learned Magistrate. Even otherwise what would be the consequence in case the petitioner's prayer is not accepted will be seen by the learned Magistrate. On that account at this stage the prosecution cannot be quashed against the petitioner industry. This petition is, therefore, partly allowed in respect of Shri B.L. Agrawal and the prosecution of Shri B.L. Agrawal is quashed. Petition Partly allowed.;