Employees cannot be prosecuted for corporate offences if the company is not an accused party in the proceedings.

1. The petitioners, employees of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, have filed the present petition for quashing the proceedings of the complaint titled, ‘Department of Agriculture vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr.’ pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as „the trial court‟) and the order dated 04.04.2016 by virtue of which the learned trial court has issued the process against the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have impugned the proceedings as well as the order dated 04.04.2016 on the grounds that without arraying the company as accused, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for commission of offences under Sections 29 (1) (a) (i), 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and that there is CRMC No. 543/2018 violation of Section 22 and Section 24 of the Insecticide Act, as a result of which indefeasible right to rebut the report of the Regional Laboratory analyst has been infringed upon by the respondent, as the employer of the petitioners herein vide communication dated 19.03.2016 in response to the show cause notice dated 09.03.2016 had informed the respondent that it wanted to adduce the evidence controverting the report but the respondent presented the complaint before the trial court without seeking report from Central Insecticide Laboratory.

3. The respondent has filed the response, stating therein that the Assistant Director Law Enforcement vested with powers of Insecticides Inspector within the jurisdiction of Jammu Division inspected the manufacturing unit of M/s Godrej Consumer Product Ltd. at Chak Partap Singh, National Highway, Hatli Morh, Kathua on 08.07.2015. The officer had drawn two samples of insecticide from M/s Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. for chemical analysis to ascertain the quality and parameter control of the sampled batches. The prescribed form No. XII was filled up by giving the detailed account of samples drawn in presence of the Quality Control In- charge and took receipt on duplicate form No. XII of Insecticide Act,

1968. All the samples were divided separately into three equal parts as per the prescribed procedure and sealed in the presence of the petitioners. One part of the drawn sample and memorandum as per devised form no. XXI was dispatched to the Insecticide Analyst, C.Q.C.L. Faridabad and the second part of the sample was handed over to Mr. Sunil Kumar (Quality Control In-charge) and the third sample was retained in the office of Assistant Director Law Enforcement for reference and record. The test CRMC No. 543/2018 results were received in the office of Assistant Director on 05.03.2016 from the concerned C.Q.C.L. Faridabad vide report dated 18.02.2016 and it revealed that Analyst, Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh on 24.11.2015, found one insecticide sample with expiry date of two years from the date of manufacturing „misbranded‟.The prosecution procedure was followed, and the sale was ordered to be stopped by virtue of show cause notice dated 09.03.2016. The details of the record pertaining to the aforesaid misbranded batch, besides, officials responsible for misbranded product were also sought from the concerned Quality ControlIn-charge/UnitIn-charge in order to initiate the legal action. After adopting procedure strictly in accordance with Insecticides Act, 1968 /Rules 1971, the accused were held responsible for manufacturing misbranded products and after obtaining the formal sanction, the complaint was filed against the petitioners.

4. Mr. Karman Singh Johal, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent has not followed the mandate of Secti