AMRIT LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint Annexure P-1 filed by the Insecticide Inspector, Rampura and subsequent proceedings taken thereunder pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 12.8.2000, Insecticide Inspector, Bhatinda visited the shop of the petitioner and took sample of Manocrotophos 36% S.L. in the presence of Gurdial Singh, Agricultural Officer, Rampura according to the rules prescribed under the Insecticide Act. At the time of taking the sample, the detail of the pesticide was mentioned in Form XII in the presence of Amrit Lal petitioner-Proprietor of M/s Amrit Lal and Brothers and got his signatures. Thereafter pesticide was stored in three plastic bottles weighting about 250 ml in each by opening three sealed containers of 5 litres each which have been purchased and manufactured by M/s Tropical Agro System Limited 118, Broad Way, Madras, bearing batch No. 210. The date of manufacturing was July 1990 and expiry date was December, 1991. The samples were sealed properly. One sealed sample was given to the petitioner. Second sample was deposited in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bhatinda and the IIIrd sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Department of Agricultural, PAU Campus, Ludhiana vide report dated 27.8.1990. After analysis, the sample was found misbranded as it did not conform to the ISI specifications as it contained 33.47% instead of 36%. Show cause notice was sent to the petitioner vide registered letter No. 12612 dated 25.10.1990. Thereafter the complaint Annexure dated 2.4.1991 was filed in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul, District Bhatinda.

(3.) NOTICE was issued to the respondents who filed his written statement. In the written statement it has been averred that the petitioner firm intentionally did not follow the proper procedure for getting the second sample analysed and knowingly delayed the whole process of re-testing. As per clause 24(4) of the Act, the petitioner never approached the concerned Court for re-analysis. It was further averred that all grounds mentioned in Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act are questions of fact and must be proved like any other fact by leading evidence in the trial Court. It was further averred that the consent was issued by the competent authority after applying its mind to the facts of the case and relevant provisions of the Act, 1968 and the Rules, 1971.