G.V. Devasahyam Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderamar bir singh gill, j.1. the petitioner by way of the present petition under section 482, cr.p.c. invokes inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing of complaint, annexure p-l, as well as subsequent proceedings on the same.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint, annexure p-1, under sections 29(1) and 17(1)(a) of insecticides act, 1969 (for short hereinafter to be referred as 'the act') was filed by the state of haryana through deputy director of agriculture, kurukshetra (by name) against the dealer, distributor and manufacturer of insecticide 'isoproturon'. the allegations were that, on 6-1-1988, the assistant plant protection officer had drawn a sample of 'isoproturon 75% having batch no. 71206 from the shop of the firm and the same was sent for analysis to the senior analyst, quality control laboratory, karnal on 8-1-1988 who, vide his report' no. 650, copy annexure p-2, declared the sample as misbranded. a copy of the report, annexure p-2, was received in the office of the complainant on 30-11-1988. a copy of the analysis report was also sent to the firm m/s. mohinder pal surjit pal, pipli i.e. the dealer under section 24(2) of the act. the manufacturer was also intimated likewise of the report of analysis. on an objection raised by the manufacturer about the batch no. of the material, a fresh report was obtained from senior analyst, quality control laboratory, karnal and corrigendum was thereafter issued, and corrected report was received in the office of complainant on 21-3-1988. information again was sent to the dealer and manufacturer of the same. the dealer moved an application, under section 24(4) of the act for sending another sample for analysis to central insecticide laboratory, faridabad. thereafter, the same was re-analyzed which was again declared to be misbranded and accordingly prosecution was lodged by way of complaint, annexure p-1, after obtaining requisite sanction, copy annexure p-4.3. the present petition has been filed by one g.v. devasahayam, director of company coromandal indag india pvt. limited. it has been urged that the report of the central insecticide laboratory, faridabad dated 8-9-1988, annexure p-3, absolves all the accused of any liability since the report mentioned that 'the same is unsatisfactory in alkalinity and suspensibility test requirements as per specification.' this report did not contain any remark as misbranded but the senior scientific officer who signed the report wrote the word 'misbranded' by his hand. the analysis report, otherwise, was found to be up to mark as far as active ingredients were concerned. consequently, the report of the central insecticide laboratory, faridabad was prepared on 8-9-1988 whereas the complainant obtained the sanction to prosecute the accused in the month of july, 1988 i.e. prior to the receipt of final report from the central insecticide laboratory. it is urged that in case the sanctioning authority had gone through the final report of the central insecticide laboratory, there was hardly any. chance of permitting a meaningless prosecution, in view of the fact that active ingredients of an insecticide were not deficient. it is also claimed that sanctioning order lacks application of mind. sanction for prosecution has been accorded to prosecute shri parveen grover, regional manager, delhi of the manufacturer but without disclosing as to in what manner. shri parveen grover was liable to be prosecuted and strange enough. parveen grover has not been made an accused and instead the present petitioner-g v. devasa hyam, director of the company has been imleaded as accused person without disclosing: as to in what manner he has any concern with the manufacturing process of the insecticide. it has not been mentioned that he, is in charge of the company or is otherwise responsible for the affairs of the company. the petitioner cannot be prosecuted without prosecuting the company itself, which is alleged to have manufactured the insecticide. besides, the case is pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate since 27-4-1994 without any progress till the date of filing of the present petition which amounts to misuse of the process of the court when the complainant is not producing any evidence against the petitioner.4. heard learned counsel for the parties.5. it appears that the prosecution of the present petitioner is without any authority of law. he has been described as a director of the manufacturing company without assigning him any responsibility of being in charge of the company or otherwise responsible for the affairs of the company. admittedly, for launching prosecution under the act, provisions of section 31(1) of the act. have to be complied with i.e. the sanction of the prosecution has to be obtained from the government or any person authorized in this behalf by the state government and in reference to prosecution for the offences under the act, one has to refer its section 33 which reads as under :-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, 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 is proved 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.6. the petitioner relies upon the sanction for prosecution, annexure p-4. the relevant part of sanction is in para 3 of the same which reads as under :-3. therefore, by virtue of the powers given by way of haryana government agriculture department notification no. 2700-agri-i (2)-77/7150 dated 21-4-1977 and in exercise of, the powers vested to me under section 31(1) of the insecticides act, 1968. 1. bir pal, direct on of agriculture, haryana give my permission/consent for institution of prosecution under section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968 against shri mahinder parson of shri s. p. bansal and shri surjit pal son of shri s. p. bansal, pipli of m/k. mohinder pal surjit pal, pipli (district kurukshetra) and shri pawan kumar s/o sh. kishan chand 418/13, urban estate, kurukshetra of distributor pawan and company, kurukshetra and shri pravin grover, regional manager, delhi of ., madras-600031. 7. a bare reading of sanction for prosecution, re-produced above, .would indicate that the manufacturing company-coromandal indag india pvt. ltd. is not being prosecuted and instead shri parveen grover, regional manager, delhi of this manufacturing company is sought to be prosecuted without even any mention as to in what manner parveen grover was responsible for the affairs of the company i.e. he was in charge or was responsible to the company for conducting the business of the company and as to reason why the manufacturing company was not being made an accused irrespective of mandate of section 33 of the act. a bare perusal of complaint, annexure p-1, would indicate that the complainant was so unmindful of the contents of the complaint that instead of parveen grover, the present petitioner-g. v. devasahayam has been impleaded as accused no. 4. there is no reference of the present petitioner in the sanction order, annexure p-4. the very basis of taking cognizance against the present petitioner are not available to the learned magistrate for issuance of any process against him.8. the next submission of the counsel for the petitioner is also not without any merit that on the date of filing of the present petition, the case pending for the last about 5 years without any progress. in similar case, reported as jayant navlakha v. state of punjab 1999 (2) rcr (criminal) 764, where the sanction for prosecution did not relate to one of the accused, proceedings were quashed. the present case is identical one. there being no sanction for prosecution of the present petitioner, notice summoning him as an accused on the basis of his name figuring in the complaint, was without jurisdiction.9. for the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed, complaint,. annexure p-1 as well as the proceedings pending against the petitioner in pursuance thereof are quashed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Amar Bir Singh Gill, J.

1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-l, as well as subsequent proceedings on the same.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint, Annexure P-1, under Sections 29(1) and 17(1)(a) of Insecticides Act, 1969 (for short hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was filed by the State of Haryana through Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kurukshetra (by name) against the dealer, distributor and manufacturer of insecticide 'Isoproturon'. The allegations were that, on 6-1-1988, the Assistant Plant Protection Officer had drawn a sample of 'Isoproturon 75% having batch No. 71206 from the shop of the firm and the same was sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal on 8-1-1988 who, vide his report' No. 650, copy Annexure P-2, declared the sample as misbranded. A copy of the report, Annexure P-2, was received in the office of the complainant on 30-11-1988. A copy of the analysis report was also sent to the firm M/s. Mohinder Pal Surjit Pal, Pipli i.e. the dealer under Section 24(2) of the Act. The manufacturer was also intimated likewise of the report of analysis. On an objection raised by the manufacturer about the batch No. of the material, a fresh report was obtained from Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal and corrigendum was thereafter issued, and corrected report was received in the office of complainant on 21-3-1988. Information again was sent to the dealer and manufacturer of the same. The dealer moved an application, under Section 24(4) of the Act for sending another sample for analysis to Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. Thereafter, the same was re-analyzed which was again declared to be misbranded and accordingly prosecution was lodged by way of complaint, Annexure P-1, after obtaining requisite sanction, copy Annexure P-4.

3. The present petition has been filed by one G.V. Devasahayam, Director of Company Coromandal Indag India Pvt. Limited. It has been urged that the report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad dated 8-9-1988, Annexure P-3, absolves all the accused of any liability since the report mentioned that 'the same is unsatisfactory in Alkalinity and suspensibility test requirements as per specification.' This report did not contain any remark as misbranded but the Senior Scientific Officer who signed the report wrote the word 'misbranded' by his hand. The analysis report, otherwise, was found to be up to mark as far as active ingredients were concerned. Consequently, the report of the Central Insecticide laboratory, Faridabad was prepared on 8-9-1988 whereas the complainant obtained the sanction to prosecute the accused in the month of July, 1988 i.e. prior to the receipt of final report from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It is urged that in case the sanctioning authority had gone through the final report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, there was hardly any. chance of permitting a meaningless prosecution, in view of the fact that active ingredients of an insecticide were not deficient. It is also claimed that sanctioning order lacks application of mind. Sanction for prosecution has been accorded to prosecute Shri Parveen Grover, Regional Manager, Delhi of the Manufacturer but without disclosing as to in what manner. Shri Parveen Grover was liable to be prosecuted and strange enough. Parveen Grover has not been made an accused and instead the present petitioner-G V. Devasa Hyam, Director of the Company has been imleaded as accused person without disclosing: as to in what manner he has any concern with the manufacturing process of the insecticide. It has not been mentioned that he, is in charge of the company or is otherwise responsible for the affairs of the company. The petitioner cannot be prosecuted without prosecuting the company itself, which is alleged to have manufactured the insecticide. Besides, the case is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate since 27-4-1994 without any progress till the date of filing of the present petition which amounts to misuse of the process of the court when the complainant is not producing any evidence against the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. It appears that the prosecution of the present petitioner is without any authority of law. He has been described as a Director of the manufacturing company without assigning him any responsibility of being in charge of the company or otherwise responsible for the affairs of the company. Admittedly, for launching prosecution under the Act, provisions of Section 31(1) of the Act. have to be complied with i.e. the sanction of the prosecution has to be obtained from the Government or any person authorized in this behalf by the State Government and in reference to prosecution for the offences under the Act, one has to refer its Section 33 which reads as under :-

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, 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 is proved 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.

6. The petitioner relies upon the sanction for prosecution, Annexure P-4. The relevant part of sanction is in para 3 of the same which reads as under :-

3. Therefore, by virtue of the powers given by way of Haryana Government Agriculture Department Notification No. 2700-Agri-I (2)-77/7150 dated 21-4-1977 and in exercise of, the powers vested to me under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. 1. Bir Pal, Direct on of Agriculture, Haryana give my permission/consent for institution of prosecution Under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 against Shri Mahinder Parson of Shri S. P. Bansal and Shri Surjit Pal son of Shri S. P. Bansal, Pipli of m/k. Mohinder Pal Surjit Pal, Pipli (District Kurukshetra) and Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan Chand 418/13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra of Distributor Pawan and Company, Kurukshetra and Shri Pravin Grover, Regional Manager, Delhi of ., Madras-600031.

7. A bare reading of sanction for prosecution, re-produced above, .would indicate that the manufacturing company-Coromandal Indag India Pvt. Ltd. is not being prosecuted and instead Shri Parveen Grover, Regional Manager, Delhi of this manufacturing company is sought to be prosecuted without even any mention as to in what manner Parveen Grover was responsible for the affairs of the company i.e. he was in charge or was responsible to the company for conducting the business of the company and as to reason why the manufacturing company was not being made an accused irrespective of mandate of Section 33 of the Act. A bare perusal of complaint, Annexure P-1, would indicate that the complainant was so unmindful of the contents of the complaint that instead of Parveen Grover, the present petitioner-G. V. Devasahayam has been impleaded as accused No. 4. There is no reference of the present petitioner in the sanction order, Annexure P-4. the very basis of taking cognizance against the present petitioner are not available to the learned Magistrate for issuance of any process against him.

8. The next submission of the counsel for the petitioner is also not without any merit that on the date of filing of the present petition, the case pending for the last about 5 years without any progress. In similar case, reported as Jayant Navlakha v. State of Punjab 1999 (2) RCR (Criminal) 764, where the sanction for prosecution did not relate to one of the accused, proceedings were quashed. The present case is identical one. There being no sanction for prosecution of the present petitioner, notice summoning him as an accused on the basis of his name figuring in the complaint, was without jurisdiction.

9. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed, complaint,. Annexure P-1 as well as the proceedings pending against the petitioner in pursuance thereof are quashed.