Single bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal while adjudicating a petition under Section 482 CRPC in terms of which petitioner had called in question the proceedings on a complaint against them under the Insecticides Act as well as the order passed by the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kathua in the said complaint observed that once the company has not been arrayed as an accused, the petitioners who are employees of the company cannot be prosecuted for the commission of offence which has been committed by the company.
Primarily the case of the petitioners was that without arraying the company as accused, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for commission of offences under Sections 29 (1) (a) (i), 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, besides claiming a violation of Section 22 and Section 24 of the Insecticide Act by the Respondents. On the other hand, the Respondents defended their action by arguing that the provisions of the Act were meticulously followed.
For purpose of adjudicating the issues involved, the Court framed following questions for determination:
Whether in absence of the company, the proceedings in the complaint can continue against the petitioners?
Whether the respondent has not followed the provisions of Section 22 and 24 of the Act ?
The Court while answering the first question, referred to Section 33 of the Act and observed, “In terms of Section 33 of the Insecticide Act, when an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time of offence was committed, was In-charge of, or responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company, as well the company are deemed to be guilty of offence and are to be liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly.“
Further, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy, (2019) 3 SCC 797, it held that though the judgment pertains to vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the language employed in Section 33 of the Insecticides Act is almost identical to that of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as such, held the ratio of the judgment to be applicable in the instant case as well and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.
