The central legal point established in the judgment is that specific allegations of responsibility for the conduct of the company's business are necessary to establish liability under the Insecticides Act.

1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C., for quashing the criminal complaint under Sections 3k(i), 9, 17, 18, 21(b), 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rules 16 and 19 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and for quashing of all consequent proceedings, arising out of the said complaint.

2. It was alleged that M/s. Madhu Sudan Industries, was a manufacturing industry, manufacturing different types of insecticides and pesticides and that petitioner, Murli Manohar, was the Managing Director of the said company. It was alleged that a criminal complaint had been filed by the Insecticides Inspector against the said company and Murli Manohar, petitioner, and others, with the allegations that the Insecticides Inspector had inspected the shop of M/s. Kasturi Lal and company on 7-7-1993, and had taken the sample and one part of the sample was sent to the Insecticides Testing Laboratory and the Senior Analyst of the said Laboratory found the said sample misbranded and accordingly, the complaint under the Act was filed on 24-10-1994. It was alleged that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the Company, whereas Sh. V. Krishna Moorthy was the responsible person for the conduct of the business of the said Company, while Ramesh Peshion and J. K. Gupta were the Executive Directors of the said Company. It was alleged that as per the certificate issued in the aforesaid Act and the Rules, issued on 10-6-1993, V. Krishna Moorthy was appointed as the responsible person of the said Company. It was alleged that the petitioner was neither the in-charge of the Company nor he was responsible for the conduct of its business. It was alleged that no offence had been committed by the petitioner. Reference was made to Section 33 of the Act, where the Company was to be prosecuted. It was accordingly prayed that the prosecution of the petitioner be quashed.

3. Initially, the petition was filed by Murli Manohar, as petitioner No. 1 and Madhu Sudan Industries, through its Managing Director, Murli Manohar, as petitioner No. 2. However, at the time of motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that M/s. Madhu Sudan Industries was impleaded as petitioner No. 2 in this petition inadvertently and that the present petition may be treated only on behalf of petitioner No. 1 namely Murli Manohar.

4. In the written reply filed by Gurinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, it was alleged that the co-accused of the petitioner had already been held guilty and were convicted and sentenced on 7-2-2000. It was alleged that the Insecticides Inspector had inspected the shop of M/s. Kashmiri Lal and Company and not Kasturi Lal and Company. It was alleged that V. Krishna Moorthy was authorised to sign the principal certificate on behalf of the company, while the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. It was further alleged that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender, after the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C. had been initiated against him, whereas the co-accused had already been convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

6. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the complaint dated 24-10-1994, filed by Gurinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, impleading Madhu Sudan Industries as accused No. 3, through its responsible persons, namely V. Krishna Moorthy, Murli Manohar, Ramesh Peshion and J. K. Gupta. In para 10 of the said complaint, it was alleged that the insecticide in question (which was found to be misbranded) was manufactured and supplied by Madhu Sudan Industries, with the consent, knowledge and connivance of V. Krishana Moorthy, Murli Manohar, Ramesh Peshion and J. K. Gupta, who were responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. There is no allegation in the complaint that they were responsi