IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is that under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, only the person in charge of the company at the time of the offence can be deemed guilty, and resignation from the company prior to the alleged offences can absolve an individual from liability.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Mohit Agrawal and Sri Ashok Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Parmeshwar Mehta, learned counsel for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 05.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IX, Muzaffarpur, in Criminal Revision No.246 of 2010, by which the learned Court below has rejected the Revision Application filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by learned S.D.J.M., East, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No.01 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. As per the complaint case, on 23.02.2008, M/S. Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Limited having its production unit at Bela Industrial Area, MIG, Muzaffarpur was inspected and sample of insecticide was collected for testing and sent for examination at State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Mithapur, Patna. A report was received in the office of the opposite party no.2 wherein it was reported that the said insecticide was found misbranded. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the Company. A reply to the show-cause has been filed by the company wherein it has been requested to get the sample of insecticide re-examined at Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, Haryana. Accordingly, the sample of insecticide was sent for re-examination at the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, Haryana. A report dated 17.04.2009 was received in the office of the opposite party no.2 in which it has been reported that the sample of insecticide was found misbranded. Again, a show-cause was issued to the company but no reply was filed by the company. After being satisfied with the materials on record, the competent authority accorded permission to initiate prosecution against the company. Accordingly, the present complaint case has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the complaint petition against the petitioner do not constitute any offence as the petitioner has not been attached with the company in any manner on the date of inspection. He further submits that from perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the petitioner has been made accused with an allegation that he was holding the post of the Director of M/S. Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Limited (hereinafter to be referred as “the Company") but the real fact is that on the date of inspection i.e. on 23.02.2008 the petitioner was not holding the post of Director of the said company rather he had retired/resigned from the said company on 12.08.1997 itself and another person was inducted in the said company in place of the petitioner on the same day and in this regard Form32 was also filed in the office of the Registrar of the Companies on 12.08.1997, which is evident from Annexure-2 annexed with the application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner after having resigned from the company on 12.08.1997 was not connected with the Company in any manner and therefore, he cannot be held responsible or accountable for the conduct of the business of the company. The company was inspected after more than 10 years of the retirement/resignation of the petitioner from the post of the Director of the company. He further submits that the petitioner has not been made as an accused in personal capacity but it has been mentioned in the complaint petition that being the Director of the company he was the person in-charge for the conduct of the business of the said company.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the company was granted license for manufacture of different insecticides and the same was extended time to time. The license of manufacture was issued in Form-V under the provisions of Rule-9(3) of the