STATE OF HARYANA Vs. UNIQUE FARMAID PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) In these appeals, raising a common question of law, the States has challenged the three separate judgments of Punjab and haryana High court quashing the complaints filed under Section 29 (l) (a) of the insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, the 'act'). High court exercised its powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short, the 'code') read with article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 29 of the Act provides for offence and punishment. Under clause (a) of sub- section (1 of Section 29 whoever imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of section 3 of the Act shall be punishable for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for the second and a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3.) To understand the rival contentions, we refer to the facts in the case in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl. ) No. 4067/97. An insecticide Inspector appointed under the Act on 5/08/1994 visited the shop premises of Sukhbir Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Vikas beej Bhandar and drew three samples of monochrotophos- 36% SL insecticide. He gave one sample to Sukhbir Singh, sent the second sample to the Senior Analyst, Quality control Laboratory (Insecticides) Karnal for testing and the third sample was deposited with the Deputy Director Agriculture, sonepat (Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. ) M/s. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. (for short, the 'unique Farmaid') is the manufacturer of the insecticide in question. Hari Singh Verma is the Sales Officer of Unique Farmaid, the manufacturer. It was reported by the Quality control Laboratory in its analysis report that sample of Monochrotophos-36%sl was misbranded (sub-section (1 of Section 24 of the Act). Accordingly, notices along with analysis report of the sample were sent on 30/09/1994 to M/s. Vikas Beej bhandar and to Unique Farmaid. A reply dated 8/10/1994 was sent by the Unique farmaid. The reply did not find favour with the authority and after obtaining consent for launching the prosecution, the (insecticide inspector on 24/06/1995 filed a criminal complaint in the court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Sonepat.