M.L. Singhal, J.
1. On January 1, 1991, Shri Satpal Sharma, Insecticide Inspector, visited the business premises of Sodhi Kheti Sewa Centre, Sardulgarh. At that time, Shri Bakhshish Singh Dhillon, Agriculture Officer, was with him. Sodhi Kheti Sewa Centre was dealing in the sale of insecticides/pesticides under a licence granted to them by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda. 50 kgs. of Isoprotourn 75 per cent. was lying in the shop for sale to the farmers for use in their agricultural fields. This insecticide had been manufactured by Hindustan Chemical Industries, Bahadurgarh. Sodhi Kheti Sewa Centre had got this insecticide from Goyal Khad Bhandar, insecticides dealer, Mansa. After disclosing his intention that he was an Insecticides Inspector authorised to seize samples of insecticides from its dealer through a notice in writing on Form No. XII, he purchased 500 gms. of Isoprotourn 75 per cent. contained in three-containers on payment of the necessary price to the proprietor, Shri Resham Singh Sodhi. Each of the sample containers was put in a separate polythene bag. Each polythene bag was sealed with seal impression IEI/21/Bhatinda. One sealed sample container was handed over to Shri Resham Singh Sodhi, proprietor of the said business. One sealed container was handed over to Shri Paramjit Singh, Agriculture Inspector, on January 4, 1991. The Chief Agriculture Officer sent the sealed sample for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, vide letter No. 884, dated January 7, 1991. The sample was analysed by the insecticide analyst, vide A. R. No. 577, dated February 25, 1991, the report of the analyst was sent to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda. The sample was found misbranded inasmuch as it was not conforming to the ISI specifications. As against 75 per cent. Isoprotourn content, 48.57 per cent. Isoprotourn content was found in the sample. Vide letter No. 3408, dated March 4, 1991, a copy of the report of the analyst was sent to the dealer along with a show-cause notice calling upon him to show cause why prosecution be not launched. The dealer gave a reply to the show-cause notice. The Chief Agriculture O'fficer sent a show-cause notice to the distributor also but no reply came. Isoprotourn 75 per cent. was found misbranded. It is an offence under the Insecticides Act to sell, stock or manufacture insecticides/pesticides/weedicide which are found misbranded or sub-standard. Shri Satpal Sharma, Insecticide Inspector, instituted a complaint under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act and Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, against the dealer, distributor and manufacturer in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mansa.
2. Hindustan Chemical Industries has. petitioned this court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, read with article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the complaint, annexure P-1, be quashed together with every consequential proceeding taken subsequent to its institution urging that the shelf life of the insecticides expired in December, 1992. The complaint, annexure P-1, was instituted on May 19, 1993, the show-cause notice was served upon them, vide letter No. 3413, dated March 4, 1991, by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda. They submitted a reply, annexure P-3, to the show-cause notice expressing that they were not satisfied with the result of the analysis arrived at by the insecticides analyst and the other portion of the sample be sent for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. In response to the reply to the show cause, the second portion of the sample was not sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. They have, thus, been deprived of their valuable right of asking for analysis of the sample granted to them by Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act. The complaint, annexure P-1, was filed against the company through its employee, Shri Balraj Kumar, manager, who left thecompany in the year 1994. The complaint became infirm when the accused was summoned after the expiry of the shelf life of the product.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the shelf life of the sample expired in December, 1992. Complaint, annexure P-1, was instituted on June 19, 1993, when the shelf life of the insecticide had expired much before the institution of the complaint. No useful purpose would have been served if the accused had requested after May 19, 1993, that the second portion of the sample be sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for analysis when the shelf life of the sample had already expired. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to the provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, reads as follows :
'24. Report of insecticide analyst.-(1) The insecticide analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under Sub-section (6) of Section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form.
(2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver onecopy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken andshall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of thesample.
(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report.
(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under Sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the insecticide analyst's report, the court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the magistrate under Sub-section (6) of Section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
(5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct.' .
4. It was submitted that the accused could make this request within twenty-eight days of the receipt of the copy of the report of the analyst either to the Insecticides Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample were pending for re-analysis of the sample. He could have made this request to the court before he was summoned for trial. He was summoned for trial in the year 1996. It was submitted that prior to being summoned, he could not have made this request for analysis of the sample. Prior to December, 1992, he could not have made the request for analysis as no complaint was then pending before the magistrate. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to the use of words 'the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending' in Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. In my opinion, the use of the words 'or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending' should not be given such narrow interpretation. In the contemplation of law, the prosecution shall be deemed to be pending before the magistrate after the Insecticide Analyst had conveyed the result of the analysis to the Chief Agriculture Officer. In this case, the result of the analysis was conveyed to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda, on February 25, 1991. The Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda, conveyed the result of the analysis to the accused on March 4, 1991. In response to the show-cause notice, the accused gave a reply, annexure P-3. The accused prayed that re-analysis of the sample be carried out as they were not satisfied with the report of the analysis carried out by the analyst. The Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda/Insecticide Inspector never sent the second portion of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. It was the duty of the accused to have deposited the cost of a test or analysis to be made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory or if the accused was not in a position to bear the cost of the test or analysis, the accused should have made a request that such cost be borne by the complainant as envisaged by Section 24(5) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. In this case, there is no evidence that the accused made any follow up of reply to the show-cause notice, annexure P-3. It was the duty of the accused to have approached the court after the receipt of the show-cause notice and make a request for analysis to the court or he should have approached the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda, and made a request for deposit of the cost of re-analysis of the sample to be made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
5. Even if no complaint was pending in the court when the show-cause notice was received by the accused, even then the accused could make a request for re-analysis of the sample to the court as in the contemplation of law, the court will be taken to be seized of the matter after receipt of the report of analysis of the sample by the Chief Agriculture Officer.
6. It was submitted by the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State of Punjab that the complaint was filed not on May 19, 1993, but on October 25, 1991, in the court of the magistrate and as such the accused could appear before the magistrate at any time after October 25, 1991, and pray for re-analysis of the sample. The accused kept playing hide and seek and did not appear before the court for almost five years. The accused evaded service tactfully. There are no equities in favour of the accused when he evaded to exercise the right granted to him under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act at the proper time mala fide. The accused could assume after the sample had been found misbranded that the institution of the complaint was imminent. The accused was informed as to the misbranded character of the sample, vide show-cause notice No. 3413, dated March 4, 1991, along with the analysis report. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was instituted against Hindustan Chemical Industries through Shri Balraj Kumar. Shri Balraj Kumar left the service of the company in 1994, i.e., prior to service of the complaint upon the company. It was also submitted that there is no averment in the complaint that Shri Balraj Kumar was in charge of or responsible to the business of the company, as such, the complaint was not maintainable against the company through Shri Balraj Kumar. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which reads as follows :
'33. Offences by companies.--(1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person, who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of, the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly :
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it isproved, that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly,'
7. Suffice it to say, the complaint may not be competent against the company through Balraj Kumar. The complaint is maintainable against the company as the company is a distinct entity. A person who is in charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company is a distinct entity. If the complaint is not maintainable against a particular person because at the time when the offence was committed, he was not in charge of or responsible to the company for the business of the company, the complaint would nevertheless be maintainable against the company. This is indicated by the use of the words 'as well as the company' in Section 33 (ibid). After acceptance of the summons, it could be urged by Hindustan Chemical Industries before the magistrate that they shall be represented by such and such person. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the sanction given is vague. Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, reads as follows :
'31. Cognizance and trial of offences.--(1) No prosecution for anoffence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the writtenconsent of, the State Government or a person authorised in this behalfby the State Government.
(2) No court inferior to that of a metropolitan magistrate or a judicial magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act.'
8. In my opinion, in the sanction order, details of the prosecution case were not required to be set out. It is spelt out clearly from the sanction order, annexure P-1, that sanction was given to prosecute the dealer, the distributor and the manufacturer.
9. It is in the rarest of rare cases that criminal prosecution is quashed by this court in exercise of its inherent powers vesting in it under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not one of those cases where the complaint, annexure P-1, should be quashed at the very threshold. Institution of this complaint cannot be taken to be an abuse of the process of the court at the very threshold. Institution of this complaint cannot be taken to be false or frivolous at the threshold.
10. The Insecticides Act was enacted with a view to ensure the supply of quality insecticides/pesticides/weedicides to farmers so that their crop was not damaged by sub-standard/misbranded pesticides/weedicides/ insecticides. If the pesticides/insecticides/weedicides supplied to the farmers is ineffective, that will harm not only the farmer but the nation as a whole because ours is substantially an agricultural economy.
11. For the reasons given above, this criminal miscellaneous petition fails and is dismissed.