Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Jai Kumar Sedha, a Senior Manager Production at Biostadt India Limited, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the order issuing process against him in Summary Criminal Case No.75/2015. The case arose from a complaint filed by the Agriculture Officer and Insecticide Inspector (non-applicant No.2) under Sections 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The complaint alleged that on 21 August 2012, the Agriculture Officer visited the applicant's shop and took a sample of Propiconazole 25% E.C., which was found to be misbranded upon analysis. The sample was taken under Section 21(1)(c) of the Act, and the report from the Insecticides Testing Laboratory dated 5 October 2012 indicated that the sample failed to conform to specifications. After receiving unsatisfactory replies from the manufacturer, sanction was obtained, and process was issued on 23 April 2015. The applicant contended that he was merely a Senior Manager Production and not a partner or director of the company, and that the complaint did not contain any specific averments regarding his role or responsibility in the alleged offence. The court examined the provisions of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, which creates vicarious liability only for persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the offence. The court found that the complaint did not state that the applicant was in charge of or responsible for the business, nor did it contain any specific allegations against him. Relying on the principle that vicarious liability requires specific averments, the court held that continuing the prosecution against the applicant would be an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the process issued against the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Process - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - Applicant, a Senior Manager Production, was sought to be prosecuted under Sections 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 for alleged misbranding of insecticides - The complaint did not contain any specific averments regarding the applicant's role or responsibility in the manufacture or sale of the insecticide - Held that in the absence of specific allegations, continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process of law (Paras 6-8). B) Insecticides Act - Vicarious Liability - Section 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 - Liability of Officers of Company - Section 33 of the Act creates vicarious liability only for persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the offence - The applicant was a Senior Manager Production and not a partner or director - The complaint did not state that the applicant was in charge of or responsible for the business - Held that the applicant cannot be vicariously liable under Section 33 without specific averments (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, a Senior Manager Production, can be prosecuted under Sections 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 without specific allegations of his role in the alleged misbranding of insecticides.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. The order issuing process dated 23/04/2015 in Summary Criminal Case No.75/2015 is quashed insofar as it pertains to the applicant.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability under Insecticides Act requires specific averments
- Section 33 of Insecticides Act applies only to partners/directors
- Quashing of criminal process under Section 482 CrPC for abuse of process
