High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/22204/2023allowed

Raj Deep Bhatia v. State Of Punjab

2024-11-12Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul11 pages

!"#"

$%&'&&'

% () *' *

+ )

####

+ ),'

!& !'( $) *+ )* *)*,

,-./-0/ $+ $1 ,, 0

$231- 40

4/ ( $)-5/ 0

( $2+$ - 40

(4/ (

*2 0

(4 6

7' 4 !

' ('8 ((&

( ! ! ( ! ! *+ )* *)*, - 9 :*/

As per the complaint in question (Annexure P-1), on 19.01.2022 Insecticides Inspector Sahil visited the premises of M/s Atla Kheti Sewa Centre Joga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Firm') and took a sample of the Clodinafop Propargyl 15% Batch No.LLS-200902, with a manufacturing date as 02.09.2020 and an expiry dated of 01.09.2022,

allegedly manufactured by M/s Leeds Lifescience Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'the Manufacturing Company'). Three samples of Propargyl 15% were drawn following the procedure prescribed under the Act. Out of these three sealed samples, two were handed over to the Chief Agriculture Officer Mansa, one was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ' Laboratory'). The test report from the Laboratory found the samples to be 'misbranded', as the active ingredients content were found to be only 12.92 % Clodinafop Propargyl instead of 15 % as per ISI specifications. After completing the requisite formalities, including obtaining consent from the competent authority, the complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mansa, under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33 of the Act on 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-1). Vide order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-2), the concerned Court summoned all the accused including, the petitioner Raj Deep Bhatia director to face trial. ,

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Trial Court has erroneously summoned the petitioner for being the director of the Manufacturing Company, despite the ingredients of the alleged offences not being made out against them. It has been further argued that the complaint in question contained only vague and bald allegations that the insecticide was manufactured by the company of which the petitioner was an official, without specific allegations against the petitioner. Relying on State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Rajiv Khurana : 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 912, learned counsel has asserted

that under Section 33 of the Act, it is mandatory to make specific averments about the accused to being incharge of or responsible for the business of the company, and the absence of such averments renders the complaint against the petitioner unsustainable and would be an abuse of the process of law.

It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that although the petitioner was holding position in the company, he was not concerned with the quality control section. The complaint itself states that Dharmvir Malik was appointed as the Manager, Quality Control cum Responsible Person, tasked with maintaining product quality in compliance with Section 33 of the Act. In his support, Learned counsel has placed reliance on affidavit of Dharmvir Malik dated 16.08.2020 submitted to Department of Agriculture Punjab, annexed as Annexure P-3. Once a company has appointed a Manager, Quality Control cum Responsible Person, no other official could be thus held liable. Learned counsel has relied upon M/s Cheminova India Limited & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors : 2021 SCC Online SC 541, to support this argument, by stating that prosecuting the petitioner would cause grave injustice since he was admittedly not involved in the quality control. Learned counsel has also relied upon 'Rajesh Aggarwal & another vs. State of Punjab' CRM- M-5137-2022 decided by this Court on 30.07.2024.

;

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer made by counsel opposite, has not disputed that a Quality Control

Manager was in place at the time of the raid in question. However, it has been argued by the learned State counsel that the petitioner along with the other accused, has prima facie committed offences punishable under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act, as the petitioner too was responsible for the affairs of the company, particularly ensuring the quality of the insecticides. Learned State counsel has argued that the submissions of the petitioner of not being responsible for the day to day affairs or quality control is a matter which can be delved into only during trial when the parties present their evidence. 6.

0 ((

( (

(

!!!!

' (

) *

)

, - # "

- # "

&-/%

-0

) *

1 2 3- !!!!

!!!!

)

#$ 5

6 6

5 7

% )

-.5

% )

-.5 #4

#97

% % .- 5# 4

% % .-5 4

% 7

% )

. 5

% #7

% )

% :7

.- 5

% 7

.-5 :6

;

-5:6

;

(

)

- #"

)

< =

- /%

-)0

) 5

5 5

0 < !

,, >4( ' ! "

# $%& (:

?-@

8 <

-/ <

-6

< )<

((= >4( ' '() " * + $%& ! ! ( (

= !

= (

( *- > & B

;-& > &

-6

# &

##-D-#D > =

+-2=

#?-#-#D#

3 %

&-0

-/ (

E-D

- # &

-6

# &

< &

-6

% =

= -=

+-2

# &

##-D-#D-4

% 8

# &

< ,

-& > &

-@ =

-G

> &

# &

-@ = - >

> ,

# &

C =

C ,

- $)

This Court also in Rajesh Agarwal's (supra) while relying upon Cheminova's (supra) allowed a similar petition in the following terms:- "*- I

- @ % = J

-6

'() "* + $%&

- D-& 8

- 11.

Upon a perusal of the allegations levelled in the complaint in question, it is clear that it lacks any specific averments showing how the petitioner was incharge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, particularly regarding quality control. The complaint explicitly mentions that Dharamvir Malik was the responsible officer for quality control, and he has already been proceeded against. In the light of the case law cited, particularly M/s Cheminova India Limited's case (supra), the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable when a quality control manager has already been identified and proceeded against.

12.

As a sequel to the above and in the light of the settled law, the instant petition is allowed and the complaint in question along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including summoning order, are quashed qua the petitioner.

&'&&' -

+ )/ = ? !6 @6 ? ( @6