Specific averments regarding the accused's role in the conduct of the company's business are imperative for vicarious liability under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of Complaint No. 67 dated 23.7.2014 under Section 3(k)(i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (`the Act' short) read with Rule 10 and 27(5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 (`Rules 1971' for short) titled as `State vs. M/s Jagjit Singh and Sons and Others', which is pending adjudication at Taran Taran, (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 13.1.2015 (Annexure P2) along with all consequential proceedings arising there from qua the petitioner.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the Director of the Company, namely, M/s Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Samba (J&K) having its registered Office at Chandigarh (for short `M/s PPPL'). The respondent-complainant has filed the criminal complaint No. 67 dated 23.7.2014 under Section 29 read with Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Act read with Rules 10 and 27(5) of the Rules, 1971. Petitioner-Kanwaljit Singh Josan is arrayed as accused No.4 in the complaint. After hearing the complainant, the trial Court has issued summoning order dated 13.1.2015 (Annexure P2) against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already put in appearance before the trial Court and was granted bail.

3. Learned counsel has further submitted that a perusal of the complaint (Annexure P1), shows that the same has been instituted with the allegations that on 4.12.2012, while inspecting the shop premises of M/s Jagjit Singh and Sons, one Jasbir Singh was selling stocking and exhibiting for the sale of 20 insecticides packets . It is further alleged in the complaint that after drawing a loose sample, as per the procedure laid down in the Act and its Rule 1971, same was sealed and another three test sample out of 20 packets were put into three portion and three sample bags were sealed and out of which two parts of sealed test sample were handed over to Agriculture Development Officer, Tarn Taran and third sample was sent for analysis to Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Bathinda. The samples were declared misbranded as it did not confirm IS specification and its active ingredients were found to be less than the standard ingredients. Thereafter, on the basis of the Analyst report, a show cause notice dated 25.1.2013 was issued under Section 24 of the Act to all the accused persons and after affording opportunity to the dealer, distributor and manufacturing firm, the complaint (Annexure P1) was filed before the trial Court in which vide summoning order dated 13.1.2015 (Annexure P2), petitioners and co-accused were summoned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a Director of the Company, namely, `M/s PPPL' and under the provisions of the Act, a specific procedure is provided to prosecute the Director of the Company. Learned counsel has referred to Section 33 of the Act which provides that whenever the Company has sought to be prosecuted for an offence under the Act, such person alone can be cited as an accused as was or were Incharge/responsible of the Company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the complainant is required to specifically and categorically aver in the complaint that the accused was Incharge or responsible of the Company for the conduct of its business. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Company `M/s PPPL' is being represented by accused- Kanchan Lal and Baljit Singh, who are Responsible Officer for Quality Control and conduct of business and Responsible person and Godown Incharge, respectively, of `M/s PPPL' and as such, the impugned complaint and prosecution of the petitioner, in pursuance thereof, could proceed against the Company as also against the responsible/nominated persons. It is further subm