NORTHERN MINERALS LIMITED Vs. PLANT PROTECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been instituted by Northern Minerals Ltd. praying that complaint No. 30/01/91 dated 19th January, 1991 filed against it under Section 200 Cr. PC read with Section 29 (1) (a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of insecticides. Amongst others, it manufactures the insecticide, Malathion 50% EC. The petitioner claims that the said product is being manufactured in accordance with the IS Specifications and is thereafter put on the market through its various distributors and retailers. One batch of insecticide Malathion 50% EC, bearing batch No. 447, was manufactured by the petitioner in February, 1990. The expiry date of this product was July, 1991. On 22nd March, 1990, it was purchased by an Insecticide inspector from a retailer called "m/s Garg Khad and Seed Bhandar", Bawana at delhi. On 29th March, 2006, one sample of the product purchased was sent by the insecticide Inspector to the Regional Pesticide Testing Laboratory at Chandigarh for testing and analysis in terms of Rule 34 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971. In the memorandum that accompanied the sample, the Inspector had clearly stated that the date of manufacture was February, 1990 whilst, the date of expiry was july, 1991. It appears that this sample was analysed by the said laboratory. It concluded that, "the sample does not conform to the IS Specification in active ingredient test requirement and misbranded. " According to the report of the laboratory, this sample was tested on 24th July, 1990. Significantly, in paragraph 6 of this report also, it is again categorically noted that the date of manufacture is February, 1990 and that its date of expiry is July, 1991.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, it thereafter received a letter dated 29th june, 1990 from the Insecticide Inspector, Delhi Administration, informing it that one sample of insecticide Malathion 50% EC, batch No. 447, was taken from the petitioner's dealer, which was found substandard after laboratory testing. The dealer had informed the Inspector that this product was purchased by him from the petitioner on 7th February, 1990, and that, therefore, it was the petitioner company that was responsible for the deficiency in standard. By this letter, a clarification was sought from the petitioner as to why substandard products were supplied by the petitioner for sale, failing which, proceedings under the Insecticides Act, 1968, would be initiated against the petitioner.