CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) Reserved on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced on: 27.07.2026 Uploaded on: 28.07.2026 ARUN C ASHAR AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Argued by: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saksham Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Jatin Sachdeva, Advocate and Mr. Akash Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. 1. Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of complaint No.313-2/24.12.2013 titled ‘State through Parminder Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Fazilka Vs. H.S. Agro Aid Centre and Others; summoning order dated 24.12.2013 vide which petitioners were summoned to face trial under Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rule 1971; order dated 21.09.2016 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka dismissing the revision petition against the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The facts, as available from the complaint Annexure P-1 filed by respondent-State are that on 28.08.2012, complainant Parminder Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Fazilka along with Ram Saroop, A.O., visited the premises of M/s. H.S. Agro Aid Centre Shop No. 69-A, New Grain Market, Fazilka, authorized dealer of M/s. United Phosphorus LTd. 3-11 G.I.D.C. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 2 Vapi, Gujrat. Anshuman Dhuria, Sole Proprietor of the firm was present in the premises. Stock register was checked and three samples were drawn from 400 litres Monocrotophos 36% SL Batch No. DJ3PKL3672, manufacture date 28.04.2012, expiry date 27.04.2014, manufactured by United Phosphorus Ltd. 3-11 G.I.D.C. Vapi, Gujrat in one liter packing. The samples were seized and sealed as per procedure, in clean and dry polythene bags. Seizure memo was prepared. One part of the sample was handed over to Anshuman Dhuria, Sole Proprietor of the firm. Two parts were sent to the office of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur, one part to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda vide letter dated 30.08.2012. The same was found mis- branded by Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda with active ingredient of 19.05% SL instead of 36% SL and did not confirm to the relevant ISI specification in active ingredients. The dealer M/s. H.S. Agro Aid Centre Shop No. 69-A, New Grain Market Fazilka and manufacturer M/s. United Phosphorus LTd. 3-11 G.I.D.C. Vapi Gujrat were found to have committed offences under Section 3(k)(9i) 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 1971. Analyst report was sent to the dealer and the manufacturer, who got re-tested the second part of the sample through Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. The second part of the sample was again found mis-branded by the Senior Analyst, Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad as the active ingredient was found 21-26 % SL. Sanction was obtained form the authorized person under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. It was alleged that the manufacturer had committed the offence by supplying mis-branded insecticide. Three persons i.e. Arun C. Ashar s/o Chandrasen L. Ashar, Director of United Phosphorus Ltd., Karshandas Gangarm Patel s/o Ganga Ram Ami Chand Patel, Assistant Manager and Chemist UPL, responsible for quality control and Yadwinder AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 3 Singh s/o Beer Singh, responsible person for conduct of Business and Godown In-charge jointly committed the offence. 3. On institution of the complaint, vide order dated 24.12.2013, the petitioners and others were summoned to face trial under Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 33 punishable under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rule 1971. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 was Director of the manufacturing company M/s United Phosphorus Limited, while petitioner No.2 was the Assistant Manager and Ex. Chemist, responsible person for Vapi factory whereas the sample was manufactured in Ankleshwar, Gujarat factory. They were summoned for trial vide order dated 24.12.2013 besides Yadvinder Singh s/o Vir Singh, the person responsible for the conduct of business and Godown Incharge. Petitioners were not responsible persons to conduct the business of the manufacturer as per copy of minutes of meeting and resolution attached with the petition and the responsible person on behalf of M/s United Phosphorus Limited was Yadvinder Singh, who was attending the Court at Fazilka. Petitioners, thus, were wrongly summoned to fact trial. There was no specific allegation in the complaint that petitioners No.1 and 2 were incharge or responsible for the business on behalf of the company. Thus, summoning order dated 24.12.2013 and order dated 21.09.2016 in revision deserved to be quashed and set aside. In this context, he referred to minutes of the meeting and resolution passed by M/s United Phosphorus Limtied in the Board of Director meeting dated 31.01.2008 and 29.03.2012 (Annexure P-7 colly.). 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, referred to Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arguing that every person, who was Incharge of manufacturing firm and was responsible to AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 4 the company for conduct of business of the company, was deemed to be guilty. Petitioners being responsible for the conduct of the manufacturing firm as per their affidavits (Annexures R-6 and R-7) were thus rightly summoned. Even as per copy of resolution dated 31.01.2008 (Annexure P-7), petitioner No.2 was responsible for unit of Vapi manufacturing firm in Gujarat and petitioner No.1 was the Director of manufacturing firm. Thus, in view of Section 33 of the Act, both petitioners were liable to be proceeded against and were rightly summoned to face trial. Prayer was made for dismissal of the petition. 6. The core issue which arises for determination by this Court is whether the Director (petitioner No. 1) and the Assistant Manager, Chemist UPL and person responsible for quality control (petitioner No. 2) can be held liable and summoned in a case of misbranding of the insecticide manufactured by United Phosphorus Ltd. when a specific person, namely Yadwinder Singh has been nominated for conduct of business. 7. Section 33 of the of the Insecticides Act, 1968 needs to be reproduced for ready reference: Section 33 in The Insecticides Act, 1968 “33. Offences by companies.- (1) 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: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 5 the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section,- (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.” 8. Thus, it is more than clear that when an offence has been committed by a company, only those persons, who, at the time the offence was committed, were in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company, as well as the company would be liable. In view of Sub-Section (2) for attracting liability of the Director, Manager, Secretary or any other Officer of the company for offences committed by the company, their consent, connivance or neglect has to be established. 9. The scope of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Rajiv Khurana 2010(11) SCC 469, wherein referring to its previous decisions in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others 1983(1) RCR (Criminal) 73, State of Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mittal and Others 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 608, K.P.G. Nair Vs. Jindal Menthol India AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 6 Ltd. (2001) 10 SCC 218, Sabitha Ramamurthy and Another Vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 296 and K.K. Ahuja Vs. V.K. and Another 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 571, the Court observed as under: “18. The ratio of all these cases is that the complainant is required to state in the complaint how a Director who is sought to be made an accused, was in charge of the business of the company or responsible for the conduct of company’s business. Every Director need not be and is not in charge of the business of the company. If that is the position with regard to a Director, it is needless to emphasise that in the case of non-Director officers, there is all the more necessary to state what were his duties and responsibilities in the conduct of business of the company and how and in what manner he is responsible or liable.” 10. Even with regard to the liability of the Managing Director, in case the company had nominated other persons, who were already accused, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Cheminova India Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another 2021 SCC Online SC 573 held as under: “14. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that on behalf of the 1 Appellant Company, 2 Appellant – Managing Director has furnished an undertaking dated 22.01.2013, 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 charge of and responsible to the said Company, to maintain the quality of the pesticides manufactured by the said Company and he was authorised to exercise all such powers and to take all such steps, as may be necessary or AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 7 expedient to prevent the commission of any offence under the Act. Filing of such undertaking with the respondent is not disputed. Even, at Para 5.10 in the counter-affidavit filed before this Court, it is pleaded by the respondents that by appointing persons responsible for affairs of the Company, quality control, etc., 2 Appellant-Managing Director cannot escape his liability from offences committed by 1 Appellant - Company. In view of the specific provision in the Act dealing with the offences by companies, which fixes the responsibility on the responsible person of the Company for conduct of its business, by making bald and vague allegations, 2 Appellant - Managing Director cannot be prosecuted on vague allegation that he being the Managing Director of the 1 Appellant - Company, is overall responsible person for the conduct of the business of the Company and of quality control, etc.” 15. In the instant case, the Company has passed a resolution, fixing responsibility on one of the Managers, namely, Mr. Madhukar R. Gite by way of a resolution and the same was furnished to the respondents by the 2nd Appellant in shape of an undertaking on 22.01.2013. When furnishing of such undertaking fixing the responsibility of the quality control of the products is not in dispute, there is no reason or justification for prosecuting the 2nd Appellant - Managing Director, on the vague and specious plea that he was the Managing Director of the Company at the relevant time. A reading of Section 33 of the Act also makes it clear that only responsible person of the Company, as well as the Company alone shall be deemed to be AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 8 guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against. 20. As all other nominated/responsible persons of the Company are already accused in the complaint, we are of view that there is no basis to proceed against the 2 Appellant-Managing Director to prosecute him for the alleged offences.” 11. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raghuram Shetty Vs. State of Punjab 2022(4) PLR 722 summed up the legal position as follows: “31. The legal proposition as enunciated by Hon’ble The Supreme Court of India and this Court while elucidating the provision of Section 33 of the Act, gives a complete conspectus that it would be imperative to not only specifically aver in the complaint that the accused was /were responsible for the conduct of the business, more necessarily to state what was the duty and the responsibilities in the conduct of business of the company and how and in what manner they were responsible or liable and that it was not proper to implead all and sundry as accused in the complaint. It was further held that unless clear averments are specifically incorporated in the complaint, the accused cannot be compelled to face the rigmarole of a criminal trial. 32. The present case being one where the company having nominated a specific person responsible for quality control, mere averring that the petitioners are responsible, without there being elaboration as to how and in what manner they were responsible for the misbranding of the product, coupled with the fact that specific allegations of their consent, connivance or neglect, resulting in the misbranding, being conspicuously missing, would not suffice, to satisfy the mandatory ingredients of Section AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 9 33 of the Act, to hold them even vicariously liable, in order to fasten them with the liability of misbranding and thereby the consequence of being penalized.” 12. In C.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 694 also, this Court held as under:| “[12]. The requirement of law in respect of creating vicarious liability must be strictly construed. Since it is a penal provision, creating vicarious liability, therefore, it is not sufficient to make bald, cursory statement in the complaint that Director is Incharge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of business of the Company without anything more role of the Director. The complaint must spell out as to how and in what manner Director was Incharge or was responsible to the Company in conduct of its business. This should be in consonance with strict interpretation of penal statutes, especially, where such statute creates vicarious liability.” 13. Other Co-ordinate Benches in M/s. Crop Chemicals India Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Punjab 2019(1) RCR (Criminl) 72, Om Parkash Aggarwal Vs. State of Haryana 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 625 and Surinder Singh Kooner Vs. State of Punjab 2015(4) RCR (Criminal) 996 have reiterated the same principles. 14. From the above, what emerges is that a Director, Manager, Secretary or other officers of the company can be summoned as accused only if it is proved that the offence was committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on their behalf. Complainant is required to plead and aver in the complaint how the Director/Manager was responsible as per provisions of Section 33(2) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 10 Mere addition of their names as accused would not suffice unless there is a specific averment that the persons arrayed as accused were in-charge and responsible for the conduct of business and day-to-day affairs of the company. 15. In the complaint Annexure P-1, the precise role attributed to the petitioners is as follows: “The manufacturer has committed offence through its responsible persons Sh. Arun C. Ashar s/o Mr. Chandrasen L. Ashar R/o Uniphose House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (w) Mumbai, director of United Phosphorus Ltd., Sh. Karshandas Gangarm Patel s/o Sh. Ganga Ram Ami Chand Patel R/o 95-A- 101, G.A.I.A. Can bangla Chharvada-8, chharvada, Ta parade, Distt. Relsar-39 Assist. Manager & Chemist UPL & responsible for Quality Control, & Sh. Yadwinder Singh S/o Sh. Beer Singh V&PO Bawal Tehsil Dhuri Distt. Sangrur. Responsible person for conduct of Business & Godwon in charge by manufacturing storage and supplying of this misbranded insecticide…..” “…Accused Sr. No. 3(i) Arun C. ashar S/o Mr. chandrasen L. Ashar R/o Uniphose house, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (w) Mumbai is accused being responsible person of the manufacturer as director. Accused at Sr. 3(ii) karshandas Gangaram patel s/o Sh. Ganga Ram Ami chand Patel R/o 95-A- 101, G.ai.d. Can Bangla chharada-8, chharvada, Ta Paradi, Distt. Bulsar-39 accused Sr. no. 3(iii) Yadwinder Singh S/o Beer Singh V&PO Bawal Tehsil Dhuri Distt. Sangrur. Accused being responsible person for Depot incharge.” 16. There is no allegation in the complaint Annexure P-1 that the offence under Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18 and 33, punishable under Sections AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 11 29(5) of Insecticides Act, 1968 has been committed with consent, connivance or is attributable to any neglect on part of the petitioners in their capacity as Director of the Company and Assistant Manager and Chemist. There is nothing disclosed how the petitioners were responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. Every Director need not be and is not In-charge of the business of the company. Even in the case of other Officers of the company, it is all the more necessary to plead and aver regarding his duties and responsibilities in the conduct of business, how and in what manner he was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the campany. The specific allegations regarding petitioners’ consent, connivance or neglect resulting in ‘mis- branding’ are conspicuously missing from the complaint. The averments in the complaint, being short of the mandatory requirements, no vicarious liability could be fastened upon the petitioners who could not have been summoned to face trial for the offence of mis-branding, particularly when the complaint explicitly mentions that Yadwinder Singh (non-petitioner) was the responsible person for conduct of business, supply of the mis-branded insecticides and Godown In-charge of the manufacturing firm and he has already been proceeded against. 17. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were responsible for conduct of business of the company in view of affidavits Annexures R-6 and R-7 does not merit acceptance, given the fact that the sample of insecticide was drawn on 28.02.2012, whereas Annexures R-6 and R-7 affidavits were sworn by the petitioners on 23.02.2010 and 13.02.2010 respectively. 18. In view of the settled principles of law discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Complaint No. 313-2/24.12.2013 dated 29.11.2013, summoning order dated 24.12.2013 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1503-2017 (O&M) 12 Fazilka, order dated 21.09.2016 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazikla and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. 19. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Reserved on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced on: 27.07.2026 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.28 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document