DESHMUKH ENTERPRISES GULBARGA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts leading to this petition are that the Inspector of Insecticides and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Gulbarga district, filed a complaint before the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. , III court, Gulbarga, alleging that Deshmukh Enterprises is the dealer in the insecticide Anucros (Monocrotophos) and the accused 2 and 3 are its partners. The said insecticide was manufactured by the 4th accused viz. , M/s. S. N. Chemical industries. On 8-10-1991, the complainant collected 3 samples for analysis. He had handed over one sealed sample to the accused 1. He sent another sample to Insecticide Analyst/deputy director of Agriculture, Insecticide Control/laboratory, Bellary, for analysis and one more sample was retained in the office as referee sample. He received the report from the Analyst on 29-10-1991, according to which the said insecticide Anucros (Monocrotophos) B. No. 080 AP 46 found "misbranded". Again he visited the shop and handed over the copy of the Analysis report along with the show-cause notice to accused 1. At that time he found that the entire stock was disposed of. He also issued show-cause notice with a copy of the analysis report to accused 4. He received the reply from both A-1 and A-4, but he was not convinced. It is further alleged that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had the stock exhibited and sold the 'misbranded' insecticide. As such accused 1 to 3 have committed offence by contravening sub-clauses (i) and (viii) of clause (k) of Section 3 of Insecticide act, 1968, punishable under Section 29 (1) (a) of the Insecticide act, 1968 (for short 'the Act' ). Similarly, accused 4 also committed the offence tinder Section 29 (1) (a) by contravening sub-clauses (i) and (viii) of clause (k) of Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, after obtaining necessary sanction, he lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate 1st class at Gulbarga, seeking appropriate orders by conducting summary trial. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and directed to issue process to the accused persons which is questioned by these petitioners in this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned S. P. P. for the respondent.

(3.) THE learned Counsel submitted that the respondent has not taken the sample in the presence of any of the petitioners. The plastic bottle used, though said to be H. D. P. did not conform to indian standard sampling prescribed. He also submitted that the Inspector of Insecticides failed to send separately specimen impression of the seal on the packet. The respondent also has not collected the sample from top, bottom and middle portion of the container. He also failed to furnish the sample for re-testing to the Central Insecticide Laboratory in spite of the demand as provided under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 24 of the Act. The sanction granted for prosecution by the Director is vitiated and the investigation is not honest. The report of the analyst is liable to be rejected as sufficient quantity of sample was not sent. Therefore, he contended that no offence was made out as against these petitioners.