Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Sh. Chetan Shah – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the liability of the petitioner. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observations on company liability. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. precedent case law related to corporate liability. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion quashing the complaint against the petitioner. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer is made to quash Complaint bearing No. COMA/39956/2013 dated 16.08.2013 titled as "State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, Bathinda v. M/s Kheti Sewa Centre Bathinda and others" under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the INSECTICIDES ACT , 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda; and also the summoning order dated 02.09.2013 (Annexure P-9) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.
2. It emerges on perusal of paper book that on 27.07.2011, Insecticide Inspector, Bathinda inspected the shop premises of M/s Kheti Sewa Centre, Bathinda. After making necessary statutory compliances, he drew 3 samples each of one liter
(1) Though, Managing Director is overall incharge of affairs of company, whether such officer is to be prosecuted or not, depends on facts and circumstances of each case and relevant provisions of la....
Dealers cannot be held responsible for misbranding under the Insecticides Act when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering.
Distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
Retailers cannot be held liable under the Insecticides Act for misbranding unless they have knowledge or direct involvement; liability requires specific allegations linking the accused to the offense....
Under Section 34 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, company offence liability presumes against nominated responsible person and firm; other officers require specific role allegations, not mere designations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
