JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the complaint No.35 dated 06.06.2016 under Section 22(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 and Section 3 (k) (I), 17, 18, 19 and 33 of INSECTICIDES ACT , 1968 titled titled as ' State of Punjab v. M/s Punia Kheti Centre and others (Annexure P-1) pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, summoning order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.07.2013, the complainant-Gurmit Singh, Insecticide Inspector alongwith Gurmail Singh, ADO(PP), Bhunerheri (Patiala), visited the premises of M/s Punia Kheti Centre Mardanhedi. At that time, Gurjit Singh son of Gurpreet Singh, Proprietor was present at the shop. He was found in possession of 10 Kgs. Quit Brand Carbendazim 12%+Mancozeb 63% WP of 1 Kg. packing manufactured and marketed by M/s Darrick Insecticides Limited. The respondent-complainant disclosed his identity to the accused-Gurjit Singh and selected one pack of Carbendazim 12%+ Mancozeb 63% WP Quit Brand Batch No.DIL 1904. A sample of 250 grams each was drawn. The various formalities were completed at the spot, and subsequently, on receipt of the test report, it was found that the same was mis-brand as it did not confirm to I.S. specifications, leading to the filing of the complaint dated 06.06.2016 against six persons (Annexure P-1) and the consequent summoning order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure P-2).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was the Godown Incharge and accused/respondent No.6 in the complaint (Annexure P-1). His contention is two fold. Firstly, it is his contention that the summoning order (Annexure P-2) is not a reasoned summoning order and in the absence of any reasoning, the same was liable to be quashed. He relies upon the judgment passed in the case of ' Madan Mohan Nayar v. State of Punjab , 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 52'.

Secondly, he contends that a perusal of the complaint would reveal no specific attribution whatsoever to the petitioner. He relies upon the judgment in ' Surinder Singh Kooner v. State of Punjab , 2015(4) RCR (Criminal) 996' in this regard.

He, therefore contends that the complaint (Annexure P-1), summoning order (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom are liable to be quashed qua the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has referred to the reply dated 26.07.2018 filed by way of an affidavit of Gurmit Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Bhunerheri, District Patiala. She contends that from the report of the Laboratory, the offence is prima facie established. Therefore, no case for quashing of the proceedings is made out.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to section 33 of the INSECTICIDES ACT , 1968. The same is reproduced herein below:-

"33. Offences by companies.-

(1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of, the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-Section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due di