Crl.
Misc.
not M-34631 of 2009 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-34631 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:
20. 8.2013.
A.C.Shroff ........Petitioner versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Dinesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab....SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No.323/2 dated 20.7.2007 under Section 3k (i).17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 ('Act' for short) (Annexure P-12) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure P-13) and order dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure P-15).Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was not Executive Chairman of the company with effect from 1.9.2003.
Reliance in this regard has been placed on Annexure P-17.
Learned counsel has further submitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.
In fact, show cause notice Annexure P-10 was issued only to the company, Mr.K.S.Mashru and Sh.
Avinsash Aute.
Hence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed as he was not responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company.
In Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
not M-34631 of 2009 (O&M) -2 - support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'Ramrajsingh versus State of M.P.and another, 2009(2).R.C.R.(Criminal) 773' wherein it was held as under:- “This provision clearly shows that so far as the companies are concerned if any offence is committed by it then every person who is a Director or employee of the company is not liable.
Only such person would be held liable if at the time when offence is committed he was in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company.
Merely being a Director of the company in the absence of above factors will not make him liable.
To launch a prosecution, therefore, against the alleged Directors there must be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction.
There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.
The description should be clear.
It is true that precise words from the provisions of the Act need not be reproduced and the court can always come to a conclusion in facts of each case.
But still in the absence of any averment or specific evidence the net result would be that complaint would not be entertainable.”
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner himself had submitted affidavit (Annexure R-5) dated 20.7.1994 wherein he had stated that he Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
not M-34631 of 2009 (O&M) -3 - was incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.
In the present case, complainant inspected the premises of M/s Rawat Kheti Centre, Bassian on 7.6.2005.
From the said firm insecticide manufactured by M/s Excel Crop Care Limited, Mumbai, was recovered.
Samples were drawn from the said insecticide.
However, when the samples were sent for analysis, the Insecticide Inspector reported that the samples did not conform to relevant IS specification in respect of active ingredient requirement, hence, it was found to be misbranded.
A perusal of Annexure P-10 reveals that after the receipt of the report of the Analyst, show cause notice was issued by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana to Excel Crop Care Limited, Mumbai, Mr.K.S.Mashru, Sh.
Avinsash Aute and Excel Crop Care Limited, Bathinda.
Thus, show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner.
As per Annexures P-17 and P-19, petitioner is not Executive Chairman of the company since 1.9.2003.
The affidavit of the petitioner, relied upon by the learned State counsel, is dated 20.7.1994.
It appears that thereafter with effect from 1.9.2003, petitioner was made not Executive Chairman Promoter Director of the company.
In these circumstances, it can be said that the petitioner was not responsible for the day- to-day affairs of the company.
The company and other accused are facing the trial including the Area Sales Manager who is the person responsible for quality control.
Since the petitioner is not responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company, continuation of criminal Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
not M-34631 of 2009 (O&M) -4 - proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Complaint No.323/2 dated 20.7.2007 under Section 3k (i).17, 18, 29, 33 of the Act (Annexure P-12) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure P-13).qua the petitioner, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 20, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.23 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh