( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioners who are accused in C. C. No. 19 of 1989 on the file of the V. Additional Munsif Magistrate, guntur. The case was filed against them under the Insecticides Act 46 of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that they have misbranded some pesticides. A-1 and A-2 are the dealer and distributor respectively. A-3 and A-4 are the Directors of the Manufacturing Company. A-5 is the chemist of the Manufacturing Company.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition as regards A-1 and A-2.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that A-3 to A-5 cannot be held respinsible as there is ro specific allegation against them. That contention is based on Section 33 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 33 of the Act provides that whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge 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. A-3 and A-4 are Directors of the company. It is not alleged that they are responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that A-3 and A-4 cannot be held responsible for the offence.

( 4 ) AS far as A-5 is concerned, A-5 is the Chemist of the Manufacturing company. Sub-sec (2) of S. 33 of the Act reads that 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 of connivance of or attributable to neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or any other officer of the company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. The allegation in this case is that a sample of Methyl Parathion 20% dust was found to be misbraoded as it contains only 1. 63% as against 20%w/w. The Chemist of the manufacturing Company is arrayed as an Accused. Section 29 of the Act says that whoever imports, manufactures, sells, stocks, or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded is punishable. Therefore the manufacture of the insecticide which does not conform to the necessary standard is also an offence. The Chemist is also made an accused because under his supervision the manufacturing process goes on. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no allegation in the complaint regarding the part played by the Chemist. But sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act says that if it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or attributable to neglect on the part of any officer of the company, he is responsible for the offence. So the question whether this product which does not conform to the standard has been manufactured either with the consent or connivance of or attributable to neglect on the part of the Chemist is a matter which has to be proved during the course of trial by necessary evidence. If it is not proved, then the Chemist will be acquitted. But at this stage it is not possible to say whether there is any evidence to show that the offence has been committed with the content or connivance of or attributable to neglect on the part of the Chemist. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a decision of my learned brother Lakshmana Rao, J. in Crl. Misc. Petition nos. 1805 of 1983 and batch dated 28-8-1984. In para 11 of that judgment the learned Judge observed as follows :"so far as the chemist accused No. 8 is