Insecticides Act, 1968: s.33 – Allegation of misbranding – Complaint against the appellant-manufacturing company and appellant-Managing Director of the company and other accused under ss.3(k)(i),17,18 and 33 – High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the complaint – In the instant appeal, plea of appellants was that they had nominated the manager to be incharge and responsible officer of the company to maintain quality of the pesticides manufactured by company and had filed the undertaking to that effect before the respondents along with the resolution of the Company’s meeting – Held: Filing of the undertaking with the respondents is not disputed – The specific provision of the Act dealing with the offence by companies states that only responsible person of the company as well as the company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against – In view of that, Managing Director of the company cannot be prosecuted on vague allegation that he being Managing Director was overall responsible for conduct of business of company and of quality control – As all other nominated / responsible persons of the Company are already accused in the complaint, there is no basis to proceed against the appellant-Managing Director to prosecute him for the alleged offences – However, there is no ground at this stage to quash the proceedings against the appellant-Company. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.202 – Plea of appellant that before taking cognizance of offence on complaint, Magistrate has not followed the procedure, contemplated under s.24(4) of the Insecticides Act and s.202 Cr.PC and that though the appellants are not residing within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the cognizance of offence was taken without making proper inquiry and ordering investigation – Held: The legislature in its wisdom has itself placed the public servant on a different pedestal, as is evident from a perusal of proviso to s.200 of the Code – Object of holding an inquiry/investigation before taking cognizance, in cases where accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of such Magistrate, is to ensure that innocents are not harassed unnecessarily – By virtue of proviso to s.200 of Code, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty – Further, by virtue of s.293 of Code, report of the Government Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence – The Code of Criminal Procedure itself provides for exemption from examination of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant – In the instant case, the second Respondent/Public Servant, in exercise of powers under provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 had filed complaint enclosing several documents including reports of the Government Laboratories, therefore, it was always open for the Magistrate to issue process on such complaint which was supported by documents – In any event, there is no merit in the submissions that proceedings are to be quashed only on the ground that, the Magistrate has taken cognizance without conducting inquiry and ordering investigation – In absence of showing any prejudice caused to the appellant at this stage, the same is no ground to quash the proceedings in exercise of power under s.482 of the Code – Insecticides Act, 1968: ss.24(4). 33.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 33 of the Act deals with ‘offences by companies’. A reading of Section 33(1) of the Act, makes it clear that 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. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that on behalf of the 1st Appellant – Company, 2nd Appellant-Managing Director has furnished an undertaking indicating that Shri Madhukar R. Gite, Manager of the Company, has been nominated in the resolution passed by the Company on 28.12.2012 to be in charge of and responsible to the said Company, to maintain the quality of the pesticides manufactured by the said Company and he was authorized to exercise all such powers and to take all such steps, as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission of any offence under the Act. Filing of such undertaking with the respondent is not disputed. In view of the specific provision in the Act dealing with the offences by companies, which fixes the responsibility and the responsible person of the Company for conduct of its business, by making bald and vague allegations, 2nd Appellant – Managing Director cannot be prosecuted on vague allegation that he being the Managing Director of the 1st Appellant-Company, is overall responsible person for the conduct of the business of the Company and of quality control, etc. Allowing the prosecution against 2nd Appellant-Managing Director is nothing but, abuse of the process of law. At the same time, there is no ground at this stage to quash the proceedings against the 1 st Appellant – Company. [Para 9][366-G-H; 367-A-E; 368-A-B]
1.2 Further, from the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 1 & 2 and other material placed on record, no case is made out to quash the proceedings at this stage, by accepting the plea of the appellants that the procedure contemplated under Section 24 (4) of the Act and Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not followed. With regard to the procedure under Section 24 (4) of the Act, after the 1 st Appellant – Company has deposited necessary Demand Draft for sending 2nd sample to the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, steps were taken promptly and report was also sent by the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory within the prescribed period of
30 days. Similarly, with regard to the procedure contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same is to be viewed, keeping in mind that the complainant is a public servant who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. The legislature in its wisdom has itself placed the public servant on a different pedestal, as would be evident from a perusal of proviso to Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Object of holding an inquiry/investigation before taking cognizance, in cases where accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of such Magistrate, is to ensure that innocents are not harassed unnecessarily. By virtue of proviso to Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty. Further, by virtue of Section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure, report of the Government Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence. The Code of Criminal Procedure itself provides for exemption from examination of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant. In the present case, 2nd Respondent/Public Servant, in exercise of powers under provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968, has filed complaint, enclosing several documents including reports of the Government Laboratories, it is always open for the Magistrate to issue process on such complaint which is supported by documents. The proceedings should not be quashed only on the ground that, the Magistrate has taken cognizance without conducting inquiry and ordering investigation. In absence of showing any prejudice caused to the appellant at this stage, the same is no ground to quash the proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As all other nominated/responsible persons of the Company are already accused in the Complaint, there is no basis to proceed against the 2nd Appellant-Managing Director to prosecute him for the alleged offences. [Paras 10, 11][368-B-H; 369-A-C]
Managing Director, Castrol India Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2018) 17 SCC 275; Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi (2019) 17 SCC 193 : [2019] 11 SCR 210 – referred to.
Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020) (2021) SCC ONLINE SC 325 – distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.