IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Though, Managing Director is overall incharge of affairs of company, whether such officer is to be prosecuted or not, depends on facts and circumstances of each case and relevant provisions of law.
(2) Legislature in its wisdom has itself placed public servant on a different pedestal. It is always open for Magistrate to issue process on such complaint which is supported by documents. Proceedings are to be quashed only on the ground that Magistrate has taken cognizance without conducting inquiry and ordering investigation.

JUDGMENT

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Petitioners/Accused nos. 3 and 4 in CRM-M-12082-2016 (O & M) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, aggrieved by the Order dated 12.05.2020. By the aforesaid order, the Petitioners’ application of quashing of Complaint No. 313 dated 19.08.2015, filed by the Respondent No.2–The Quality Control Inspector, Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, Punjab for offences under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33, punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”), was dismissed. The petition was allowed by the High Court for other accused, who was working as Godown Incharge, and quashed the proceedings.

3. The 1st Appellant is a Company, having its office in Mumbai, which is engaged in manufacturing of insecticides. The 2nd Appellant was the Ex-Managing Director of the Company. On 31.12.2013, Quality Control Inspector, Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, Punjab inspected the premises of M/s. Dhillon Kheti Store in the presence of its sole Proprietor, Shri Nishan Singh. The said Nishan Singh was the authorised dealer for 1st Appellant – Company, to sell its insecticides. At the time of inspection, the inspecting officer found six boxes containing 25 packets each, of Piroxofop Propanyl (Clodinafop Propargyl 15% WP), with each packet weighing 160 grams, stocked in the premises. From the abovesaid stock, samples were drawn and one of the samples was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. When the report dated 15.01.2014 was received, active ingredient of Piroxofop Propanyl was found only to the extent of 11.72% as against the labelled declaration of 15%. A copy of the report was sent to the dealer at Amritsar along with a Show Cause Notice. On production of copy of the invoice by the dealer, indicating that he had purchased the insecticides in question from the 1st Appellant – Company, Show Cause Notice was also issued to the 1st Appellant – Company, which is having its manufacturing unit in Bharuch, Gujarat and to other responsible officers of the Company. On receipt of the report, the 2nd Appellant herein, on behalf of the Company, also made a request to send another sample to Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory at Faridabad vide letter dated 27.03.2014 and after depositing necessary charges, another sample was sent to Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, which has reported that the sample was misbranded as the same was found to contain 10.09% of active ingredient only as against 15%, as labelled on the packet. After obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority, a complaint was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate to prosecute the appellants and other accused for offences under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33, punishable under Section 29 of the Act.

4. The appellants and other accused approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the said complaint on various grounds. By impugned order, High Court has dismissed the petition, so far as appellants are concerned, and allowed the application for the Godown Watchman.

5. Heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Appellants and Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants by referring to Section 33 of the Act has submitted that appellants have already filed an undertaking dated 22.01.2013 before the respondents, nominating the incharge and responsible officers of the Company to maintain quality of the pesticides manufactured by the Company along with the resolution of the Company’s meeting held on 28.12.2012. Learned Counsel has submitted that by making vague and bald allegations, the appellants, who were the Company and the Managing Director, are also sought to be prosecuted.

6(a). It is submitted that unless there is a clear and categorical averment in the complaint, indicating the role played by the appellants, there cannot be any vicarious lia