Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 2072
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
M/s Cheminova India Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 1162 of 2020
Decided On : 12-05-2020
For the Parties : Mr. Rashmi Attri AAG, Punjab
For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Maini
Headnote:(A) Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33; Insecticides Rules, 1971 - Complaint for misbranding - Quashing of proceedings sought by manufacturing firm - No mandatory show-cause notice issued to manufacturing firm as per Section 24(2) - Delay in analysis of sample not found to cause prejudice - Complaint filed complies with statutory requirements despite some procedural irregularities. (Paras 1, 12, 18, 27)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 202 - Inquiry requirements - Conditions for postponing process issuance noted - Public servant complaints are treated differently under jurisdictional mandates - No separate inquiry needed when sufficient evidence exists. (Paras 25, 30)
(C) Various legal precedents on managerial responsibility in corporate accountability noted - Allegations sufficient to initiate prosecution against responsible parties for misbranding. (Paras 39, 40, 44)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to quash complaints initiated under the Insecticides Act against their manufacturing firm for misbranding insecticides. Various procedural objections were raised regarding show-cause notices and sample analysis delays.
Findings of Court:
Complaint against manufacturing firm not quashed; delays in sample analysis not prejudicial; necessary sanctions for prosecution deemed valid.
Issues: Did the failure to issue a show-cause notice invalidate the complaint? Was the delay in sample analysis prejudicial? Were proper procedures followed by the Magistrate?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of an individual show-cause notice to each accused did not vitiate the complaint process. The inquiry under Section 202 was deemed adequate given the nature of evidence presented which sufficed for proceeding against the accused.
Result: The complaint against the manufacturer and associated officers dismissed except for one individual whose case was quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of insecticide complaint (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments by petitioners against the complaint (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural compliance (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 23) |
| 4. applicable legal principles and precedents (Para 15 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. conclusion on petitioner's liability and order (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 44 , 46) |
Judgment
Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.:- The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of complaint No. 26 dated 25.3.2014(Annexure P-1) initiated by respondent No. 2- The Insecticide Inspector, Attari, District Amritsar under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, and 33 punishable under Section 29 of the INSECTICIDES ACT , 1968 (hereinafter refered to as the Act), read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.
2. The facts, as extracted from complaint(Annexure P-1), are that on 10.2.2011 Shri Tejbir Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Attari, District Amritsar accompanied by Shri Kulwant Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Attari inspected the premises of firm M/s Navneet Singh, Railway Road, Attari, District Amritsar where its sole proprietor Sh. Navneet Singh was present. Sixty tins containing insecticide Trizophos 40% E.C (each tin containing 100 ml.) were found stocked in the premises for sale. After serving notice in terms of Form XX, 3 tins were taken out of the aforesaid 60 tins as test samples and were duly sealed. One sealed sample was handed over to Shri Navneet Singh, Proprietor of the firm while the remaining two sealed samples were handed over to Shri Gurvinderpal Singh, Agriculture Development Officer(Plant Protection), Amritsar on 11.2.2011. One sample out of the said two samples was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, for analysis vide letter no. 1782 dated 17.2.2011. The second sealed sample remained in custody of Shri Gurvinderpal Singh, Agriculture Development Officer (Plant Protection), Amritsar as reference sample.
3. The sample, upon analysis by the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was declared to be misbranded vide report dated 14.3.2011, as the same was found to contain active ingredient to the extent of 34.70 % only as against the labeled declaration of 40%. A copy of report of the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana(Annexure P-5 colly.) was communicated to Shri Navneet Singh, Proprietor of firm M/s Navneet Singh(dealer) along with show cause notice no. 2112 dated 24.3.2011(Annexure P-6 colly.).
4. Shri Navneet Singh (dealer) submitted his reply in response to the show cause notice which was received in the office of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Amritsar on 30.3.2011. At the time of personal hearing on 5.4.2011, Shri Navneet Singh (dealer) produced a photocopy of invoice dated 4.6.2010 indicating that he had purchased the insecticides in question from M/s Cheminova India Limited. Consequently, a copy of analysis report and show-cause notice was communicated to Managing Director of the manufacturing company i.e. M/s Cheminova India Limited, Bharuch, Gujrat, and to other responsible persons of the said company vide registered letter No.2191-95 dated 28.3.2011 (Annexure P-7 colly.). In response thereof, the manufacturing company i.e petitioner no.1 through its officials requested the Chief Agriculture Officer, Amritsar for re-analysis of second sample of insecticide, vide letters dated 15.4.2011(Annexure P-7 colly). Upon receipt of draft of Rs. 500/- from the firm, the second sample which was in the custody of Shri Gurvinderpal Singh, Agriculture Development Officer (Plant Protection) Amritsar was sent to Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad for re-analysis vide forwarding letter no. 1425 dated 2.5.2011.
5. The Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad, upon analysis of the second sample, reported that the sample was misbranded as the same was found to contain 36.90 % of
