79 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CrleMisceNo24741of2005 084Ml Dateofdecision 17802009 SantLal Surekha 1 OeePetitioner Versus 0 C StateofPunjab I C5 espondent I CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Z Present 1 Mrakesh Verma Advocate for thepetitioner I a5 MrBBSTeji AAG Punjab for the 7 Z MAHESH GROVER Je This is a petitionfor quashing ofcomplainttitJed State V Manesh Kumar and others and all arising tllerefrOOle A complaintunder the InsecticidesAct 1968 Olereinafter reerred to asthe Ac read with InsecticidesRules 1971 was filed againstthe petitionerwhen on 237 1997 an Insecticide Inspector drew a sampleof insecticide om the shoppremisesof one dealer namelyMls GoyalTraders AnajMandi Sahnewal Distt Ludhiana On testingthesamplewas found to be misbranded Show cause noticc . uma 2012.06.04 15: 49 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 CrleMisclo4741 of2005 e2e was issued to the dealer as well as the company 1ee Mls Thakar Chemicals Ltd New Delhi by the Chief Agriculture Officer Ludhiana No individual notice was served upon the petitionerUponthecomplaint havingbeen before the coun of competentjurisdiction thepetitioner was summonedas an accused r vide order dated2111999 1 Learned counsel for the petitionercontends that the 0 impugnedcomplaintand the is totallycontraryto the C provisions oflaw He saysthat he is a Director ofthe company and no C5 I specificand individual sanctlon for his was issued by the authoritywhich is the of Iaw as per Z Section 31 ofthe Act He 61rthercontendsthat thereare no averments in the complaint as to whether the petitioner was in chargeof the I a5 affairsof the company or not and thereforethe complaint and the OO order could not be sustainedagainsthim He has referred 7 to the order of sanctionwhich hasbeen placed on record as Annexure Z nS P and the relevantextract ofthe same readsas under Deep Singh Sahota Joint Director of 6PlantProtection9Punjab lSSUe my written consent to ShBaUinder Singh Insecticide InspcctorSahnewal for launchingprosecutionunder rule 27 51ofInsecticide Rules 1971 for further action against the followingfor allegedcontravention while Olingthe case in the court 1 Mls Goel Traders Grain Market Sahnewal Disu Ludhianathrough Manesh Kumar Goel Proprietorl . uma 2012.06.04 15: 49 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 CrlMiscNo24741 of2005 e 2 Mls Thakur Chemicals 2 10 Shivlok House 11 ComplexNew Delhiel 10015 through lts personShant Lal slo ShHazari Lal Partnerl 31 Reliance was also placedon Shashank BhargavaVe State of Punjaband another 200501RCR Criminall53 Shashank m Bhargavaand another ve The State of Punjab and another 2000 0 C 021RCC 454 and SKJindal ve State of Haryana2005 RCR I Criminall68 C5 I On the other hand leamed counsel for the has statedthat in the complaintspeciOcavennentshave been made that the petitioner was for the affairs of the company and in r the declaration furnished by the company it has been stated that the I 08 petitioner is for the affairs of the company and therefore the petitioner cannot raise this contention to say that he cannot be 7 Z 0m I have heard the learned counsel for the partiesand have perused theimpugned complaint as also the order Section 33 ofthe Act is as under 1 Offences by l IWheneveran offence under this Act has been committedby a company every personwho at the timethe offence was commiued wasin charge0 or was to the company for the conductof the businessof the company as well as the shali be deemedto be guiltyof the offence and shall be liable to be againstand punished . uma 2012.06.04 15: 49 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 Y CrleMisceNol4741 of2005 e4a J accordingly Provided thatnothing containedin this subesectionshall render any such person liable to any under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledgeor that he exercised ail due diligence to preventhecommission ofsuch offence 1 r 21 anything contained in sulsection 0 O11where an ofTenceunder this Act has been committed C I by a company and it IS provedthat the offence has been C I committed with the consent or connivance of or 1S attributable to any neglecton the part of any director Manager or other officer of the company such rt Director ManagerSecretary or other officer shall also be I C45 deemed to be guiltyof that offence and shall be liable to be against and punishedaccordingly 7 ExplanatiorForthe purposeofthis section Z al company means any bodycorporateand includes a firm or otherassociationof individuals and b9 director in relation to a flrm meansa partnerin the firm 99 The provisions of Section 33 clearlyIaydown that every person who at the time the offence was committed was in chargeof or was to the company for the conduct of the businessof the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guiltyof the offence and shall be liable to be againstand punished In the furnished coinpany has been said . uma 2012.06.04 15: 49 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 1 CrleMiscNoe24741of2005 e5e any bodycorporateand includes a firm or other association of individualsand director means in relation to a Orm means a partner in the Omle Section31 ofthe Act readsas under 310 Cognizanceand trial of oUencese 611No for an offence under this Act shali be m 1 institutedexceptby or with the written consent of the 0 StateGovernmentor a person authorisedin this behalf by C I the StateGovernment C5 29No court inferior to that ofa Metropolitan Magistrate I or a Judicial Magistrate of the flrst class shall try any Z offence underthis Act If the order Annexure P3 grantingsanctionis to be seen I then it merelyshows that sanction was grantedto prosecuteMls 08 ThakurChemicals New Delhi vlanufacturerl throughits e ShSant Lal It is thusnot a cleat cut compliance of Section 31 of the Act The sanctionis obviouslyfor of the company and not the petitionerIn Shashank Bhargavave State of Punjab and another RCR 6Criminall53 this court in similar circumstanceshas the byholdingthat such like sanction ismerelyfor the of the companyand not for the individualSimilarlyin Shashank Bhargavaand another v The State of Punjaband another 200029RCC 454 this coun held that Slnce thereis no sanction to prosecutethe petitionerwho is an individualthe rightof a company to appoint a under Section 30529CrPC stood violated . uma 2012.06.04 15: 49 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 1 CrleMiscNol4741 of2005 e Havingregardto the aforesaid settled positionof iaw as in the aforesaid upon which reliance hasbeen placedby the learned counsel for the petitionerI am of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable The complaintand the consequent order deserve to be quashedOrder accordingly m Ct Petition standsallowed 0 3 JlZLPt S I 2009 MASH GROVERI 0 JUDGE dss I j Z Il r I V c6 7 Z 1 41 . uma 2012.06.04 15: 49 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document