ORDER:

1. The present Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2006, dated 24.7.2007, on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.504 of 2001, dated 10.1.2006 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, wherein the petitioners-accused were convicted under Section 29(1)(a) read with Section 3k(1) of Insecticides Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.

2. The facts in issue are as under :

On 23.12.1999 at 8.00 AM, P.W.1 inspected the premises of A1, issued form No.20 acknowledgment and drawn pesticides sample phorate 10% C.G. (Phorwin 10% C.G.) as per the procedure in the presence of mediators - P.Ws.2 and 3. A1 issued invoice for the above phorate. Four portions of the sample were packed and sealed. First portion of the sample was handed over to A1; second portion of sample was sent to Deputy Director of Agriculture (Insecticides Analyst) Testing Laboratory and Centre, Hyderabad, for analysis and report; third portion of the sample was deposited with Joint Director of Agriculture, Machilipatnam, as referee sample; and 4th sample was sent to Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, A.P., Hyderabad. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Insecticides Analyst (PPL) and Forensic Centre, Hyderabad, through its memo.C/885/99, dated 6.3.2000 informed that the above samples of pesticides contains 8.65% C.G. only as against 10% C.G., hence, misbranded. The copy of the analyst report in Form No.17 was served by P.W.1 on A1 on 14.3.2000. A1 submitted a letter on 28.3.2000 to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Machilipatnam, requesting to send the referee sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad for re-analysis and the court was pleased to send the referee sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, for retesting and report. On 9.6.2000, Analyst report was received in form No.17 stating that the sample does not confirm to the relevant I.S. specification as active ingredients contained requirement of 8.6% C.G. only and hence misbranded.

3. On 8.7.2000, the Joint Director of Agriculture, Machilipatnam, submitted the prosecution proposals to the Collector, District Magistrate, Krishna, who accorded authorization for prosecution of the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of complaint were furnished and examined them under Section

251 Cr.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty.

4. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, but did not adduce any defence evidence.

5. Considering the material on record, the trial court convicted the accused as stated above.

6. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that sentencing the 1st petitioner to jail is incorrect, since it is a company, represented by its Managing Director. Managing Director is not made a party to the proceedings independently. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he is shown as a Chemist, and there is no material on record to show that he is a Chemist and that he was involved in day-to-day functioning or at least in the business of the company.

7. In order to appreciate the same, it would be useful to extract Section 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968, which is as under :

“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 c