[S.33 Insecticides Act] All Those Responsible For Conduct Of Business Liable When Company Commits Offense Under Insecticides Act: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that under the Insecticides Act, 1968, if a company commits an offence, both the company and the individuals in charge at the time are considered guilty and can be prosecuted and punished.While quashing criminal proceedings against employees of a company without actually arraying the company as an accused A bench of Justice Rajnesh...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that under the Insecticides Act, 1968, if a company commits an offence, both the company and the individuals in charge at the time are considered guilty and can be prosecuted and punished.
While quashing criminal proceedings against employees of a company without actually arraying the company as an accused A bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal added,
“Once the company has not been arrayed as accused, the petitioners who are employees of the company cannot be prosecuted for the commission of offence which has been committed by the company”.
These observations came in a case stemming from an inspection conducted by the Assistant Director of Law Enforcement, vested with powers of Insecticides Inspector, at Godrej's manufacturing unit in Kathua Jammu.
Samples of insecticides were taken and analyzed, revealing that one sample was "misbranded." Consequently, the sale was stopped, and a complaint was filed against the petitioners, who were the Quality Control Incharge and Unit In-charge, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua who issued the process against the petitioners.
Aggrieved of the same Mr. Karman Singh Johal, counsel for the petitioners, argued that the proceedings and the order were flawed as the company, Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., was not arrayed as an accused. He emphasized that without including the company, the employees alone could not be prosecuted under Sections 29 (1) (a) (i), 33 of the Insecticides Act.
He further argued that the petitioners were deprived of their right to rebut the laboratory report, violating Sections 22 and 24 of the Insecticides Act.
On the other hand, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, representing the respondent, asserted that all procedures mandated by the Act were meticulously followed. He maintained that the proceedings and the order to initiate the process against the petitioners were valid.
Addressing the contention as to whether the proceedings in the complaint could continue against the petitioners in the absence of the company Justice Oswal noted that Section 33 of the Insecticides Act explicitly states that both the company and its responsible individuals must be prosecuted for any offence committed by the company.
“Under the Insecticides Act, 1968, when an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence, as well as the company itself, are deemed to be guilty of the offence and are liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly”, the bench remarked.
It further highlighted that M/s Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. was not arrayed as an accused in the complaint, despite being identified as the manufacturer of the misbranded insecticide.
Referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy, (2019), the court underscored that for maintaining a prosecution, arraigning the company as an accused is imperative. The court concluded that without including the company, the petitioners could not be prosecuted, as their liability was vicarious.
In light of these observations, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 171
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment