Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Kanwaljit Singh Joson - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-294 of 2016
Decided On : 07-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Randeep S. Khaira, Assistant Advocate General
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed solely based on a director's designation without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
Headnote:
Insecticides Act - Prosecution of Director under Section 33 - 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which deems a person guilty of an offence if they were in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence. The court highlighted the necessity for specific averments in the complaint to establish the director's role and responsibility in the conduct of the company's business. The judgment emphasized that vicarious liability cannot be imposed solely based on the director's designation without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Section 33.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a director of a company, sought quashing of a criminal complaint and summoning order under the Insecticides Act, 1968, alleging that the complaint did not specifically aver his role and responsibility in the conduct of the company's business as required under Section 33.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not fulfill the mandatory requirements of Section 33 and emphasized the necessity for specific averments to establish the director's role and responsibility in the conduct of the company's business.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and whether the complaint contained specific averments regarding the director's role and responsibility in the conduct of the company's business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed solely based on the director's designation without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Section 33, emphasizing the necessity for specific averments in the complaint to establish the director's role and responsibility in the conduct of the company's business.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the criminal complaint, summoning order, and subsequent proceedings were quashed against the petitioner.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of Complaint No. 15 dated 17.1.2013 under Sections 3(k)(i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (‘the Act' short) read with Insecticide Rules, 1971 (‘Rules 1971' for short) titled as ‘State vs. M/s Balaji Sales Corporation and Others', which is pending adjudication at Bathinda, (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 17.1.2013 (Annexure P2) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom 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. 15 dated 17.1.2015 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18,29 & 33 of the Act read with Rule 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 17.1.2013 (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 submitted that a perusal of the complaint (Annexure P1), shows that the same has been instituted with the allegations that on 11.8.2011, while checking the premises of M/s Balaji Sales Corporation, Maur Mandi, stock of insecticides were found in the premises, which were purchased by the complainant after obtaining the consent of the said dealer, who is one of the co-accused. It is further alleged in the complaint that after drawing samples, as per the procedure laid down in the Act and its Rules 1971, the same were sealed, as per Rules and were sent for analysis to Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. The samples were declared misbranded as it did not conform ISI 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 was issued under Section 24(2) 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 17.1.2013 (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 a Company is 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Company ‘M/s PPPL' is being represented by accused- Suresh Kumar Kochhar, Yashbir Singh Mann and Jaskaran Singh, who are the Country Head of the Quality Controller and Plant Manager, Manager Co-ordination and Responsible person for conduct of business 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 submitted that the present petitioner, merely on account of holding the post of Director could not be summoned to
