TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity and the said seed was manufactured by M/s. Syngenta India Limited ('the Company' for short) which is a company registered under the Companies Act. The sample collected was sent to a Seed Analyst at the Seed Examination Centre, Dharwad on 12-11-2020. The sample so sent by the complainant was received by the Seed Analyst on 13-11-2020. On 4-12-2020 the said Analyst sent his report concluding that the sample sent to him by the complainant had germination of 81% as against the prescribed germination of 98.6%. The sample was thus declared "sub-standard". It is the claim of the petitioner that the report of the said analyst was never furnished to him. The seed had life of 9 months from the date of its manufacture and was to expire on 18-02-2021. 3. On 2-03-2021, a show cause notice was issued by the complainant to the Company/Syngenta India Limited along with the report of the Seed Analyst, alleging that the seed was sub-standard and sought a reply at the hands of the Company to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against the Company. The show cause notice was received by the Company on 11-03-2021 long after expiry of three days given to submit its reply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MITED - (1999) 8 SCC 190 & v) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ANUP PRODUCT LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2001 KAR 5216. 8. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submissions and contend that the petitioner is liable for the alleged substandard quality of the seed and it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial by producing such evidence which would demonstrate the quality of the seed to the prescribed germination. Since cognizance is already taken in the case at hand, it is his submission that this Court should not interfere and let the trial to go on. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the following points arise for my consideration: (i) Whether the complaint was maintainable without the Company being made an accused in the proceedings? (ii) Whether the entire proceedings get vitiated on account of prejudice and violation of Section 16 of the Act? 10. Point No. (i): Whether the complaint was maintai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsible for the acts of the company and, therefore, a prosecution against the Directors or other officers is tenable even if the company is not arraigned as an accused. The words "as well as" have to be understood in the context. 59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh (1970) 3 SCC 491 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 97 which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal: (1984) 4 SCC 352 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 620 does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada (2000) 1 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 174] is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery (1987) 3 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 632 has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sections 14 and 15 of the Act read as follows: "14. (1) The Seed Inspector may- (a) take samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety from - (i) any person selling such seed; or (ii) any person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such seed to a purchaser or a consignee; or (iii) a purchaser or a consignee after delivery of such seed to him; (b) send such sample for analysis to the Seed Analyst for the area within which such sample has been taken; (c) enter and search at all reasonable times, with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary, any place in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed and order in writing the person in possession of any seed in respect of which the offence has been or is being committed, not to dispose of an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....except in special cases provided by rules made under this Act, take three representative samples in the prescribed manner and mark and seal or fasten up each sample in such manner as its nature permits. (2) When samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety are taken under sub-section (1), the Seed Inspector shall- (a) deliver one sample to the person from whom it has been taken; (b) send in the prescribed manner another sample for analysis to the Seed Analyst for the area within which such sample has been taken; and (c) retain the remaining sample in the prescribed manner for production in case any legal proceedings are taken or for analysis by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) of section 16, as the case may be. (3) If the person from whom the samples have been taken refuses to accept one of the samples, the Seed Inspector shall send intimation to the Seed Analyst of such refusal and thereupon the Seed Analyst receiving the sample for analysis shall divide it into two parts and shall seal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of section 15 to the Central Seed Laboratory for its report and on receipt of the application, the court shall first ascertain that the mark and the seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 are intact and may then despatch the sample under its own seal to the Central Seed Laboratory which shall thereupon send its report to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of the analysis. (3) The report sent by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Seed Analyst under sub-section (1). (4) Where the report sent by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) is produced in any proceedings under Section 19, it shall not be necessary in such proceedings to produce any sample or part thereof taken for analysis." (Emphasis supplied) 17. In terms of Section 16, the Seed Analyst shall as soon as possible on receipt of sample prepare a report of the sample and furnish the same to the Seed Inspector and another copy thereof to the person from whom the sample was taken. Sub-secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. The procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has the right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, the expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 613 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 312 : JT (1996) 10 SC 480 this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act requires that a copy of the said report shall be delivered by the Insecticide Inspector to the person from whom the sample was taken. In pursuance of the said requirement under sub-section (2), a copy was delivered on 27.1.1995. As per sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, the above said report of the insecticide Analyst would be conclusive, unless, within 28 days of the receipt of the notice under sub-section (4), the person concerned notifies to the Insecticide Inspector in writing about his intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the said report. Within the said period of 28 days, the Insecticide Inspector was intimated in writing by the communication dated 20.2.1995. Sub-section (4) of Section 24 inter alia provided that, where sample has not already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, like in the present case where it was in a Laboratory other than the Central Insecticides Laboratory, and where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticides Analyst's report, the Court may of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accused to have sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of valuable rights statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involved in the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Brijlal Mittal (1998) 5 SCC 343 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram AIR 1967 SC 970); Chenmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 72]; and Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar Saraf (1999) 2 SCC 400 all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954. It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticide....