Karnataka HC Quashes Insecticide Case Against Agro Trader And Company Official, As The Company Itself Was Not Accused

The Assistant Director of Agriculture and Insecticide Inspector inspected M/s. Huligemmadevi Agro Trading on 23 August 2022, collected samples of an insecticide, and sent them for analysis.

The laboratory report stated that the sample contained insecticides. After issuing show-cause notices, the respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners.

The Magistrate took cognizance of alleged offences under Sections 9, 13 and 3(k), punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, arguing, among other things, that the manufacturer had not been made an accused as required by Section 33.

Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 provides for liability where an offence under the Act is committed by a company: persons in charge of, or responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business may be deemed liable, subject to the provision’s terms.

The Court held that the company itself must also be made an accused and that its omission is fatal to the prosecution.

The proceedings were brought under Sections 9, 13 and 3(k), punishable under Section 29, of the Act; the judgment did not separately analyse the ingredients of those provisions.

Although the complaint alleged that the insecticide being sold was not in accordance with the licence and relied on the laboratory report, the Court considered the prosecution’s failure to arraign the company decisive.

Applying its interpretation of Section 33, it held that the company’s inclusion as an accused was mandatory, not a defect that could be treated as a mere irregularity or cured later in the trial.

Cognizance taken without the company as an accused was therefore bad in law.