M/S CHEMINOVA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 04-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
M/S CHEMINOVA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 750 of 2021)
AUGUST 4, 2021
[NAVIN SINHA AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Insecticides Act, 1968: s.33 – Allegation of misbranding –
Complaint against the appellant-manufacturing company and
appellant-Managing Director of the company and other accused
under ss.3(k)(i),17,18 and 33 – High Court dismissed the petition
for quashing the complaint – In the instant appeal, plea of appellants
was that they had nominated the manager to be incharge and
responsible officer of the company to maintain quality of the
pesticides manufactured by company and had filed the undertaking
to that effect before the respondents along with the resolution of
the Company’s meeting – Held: Filing of the undertaking with the
respondents is not disputed – The specific provision of the Act
dealing with the offence by companies states that only responsible
person of the company as well as the company alone shall be deemed
to be guilty of offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against –
In view of that, Managing Director of the company cannot be
prosecuted on vague allegation that he being Managing Director
was overall responsible for conduct of business of company and of
quality control – As all other nominated / responsible persons of
the Company are already accused in the complaint, there is no basis
to proceed against the appellant-Managing Director to prosecute
him for the alleged offences – However, there is no ground at this
stage to quash the proceedings against the appellant-Company.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.202 – Plea of appellant
that before taking cognizance of offence on complaint, Magistrate
has not followed the procedure, contemplated under s.24(4) of the
Insecticides Act and s.202 Cr.PC and that though the appellants
are not residing within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the
cognizance of offence was taken without making proper inquiry
and ordering investigation – Held: The legislature in its wisdom
has itself placed the public servant on a different pedestal, as is
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 360
360
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
evident from a perusal of proviso to s.200 of the Code – Object of
holding an inquiry/investigation before taking cognizance, in cases
where accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of such
Magistrate, is to ensure that  innocents are not harassed
unnecessarily – By virtue of proviso to s.200 of Code, the Magistrate,
while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public
servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official
duty – Further, by virtue of s.293 of Code, report of the Government
Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence – The Code of
Criminal Procedure itself provides for exemption from examination
of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant –
In the instant case, the second Respondent/Public Servant, in
exercise of powers under provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968
had filed complaint enclosing several documents including reports
of the Government Laboratories, therefore, it was always open for
the Magistrate to issue process on such complaint which was
supported by documents – In any event, there is no merit in the
submissions that proceedings are to be quashed only on the ground
that, the Magistrate has taken cognizance without conducting
inquiry and ordering investigation – In absence of showing any
prejudice caused to the appellant at this stage, the same is no ground
to quash the proceedings in exercise of power under s.482 of the
Code – Insecticides Act, 1968: ss.24(4). 33.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 33 of the Act deals with ‘offences by
companies’. A reading of Section 33(1) of the Act, makes it clear
that 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. In the
case on hand, it is not in dispute that on behalf of the 1st Appellant
– Company, 2nd Appellant-Managing Director has furnished an
undertaking  indicating that Shri Madhukar R. Gite, Manager of
the Company, has been nominated in the resolution passed by
the Company on 28.12.2012 to be in c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.