RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been moved by Ramesh Kumar, M/s, Malka Khoti Store through its proprietor (Ramesh Kumar), Vijay Kumar and M/s. Dhawan Brothers through its partner (Vijay Kumar) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint No.35 dated 7/11/2008 Annexure P1 under Sections 3(k), (i), 17,18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 (for brevity the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules 1971, titled as State v. M/s Malka Kheti Store and others pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, District Tarn Taran, the summoning order Annexure P2, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are the licensee under the Act to deal in various kinds of insecticides and pesticides manufactured by the companies. They sell only sealed and packed insecticides/pesticides as packed by registered manufacturing companies who are authorized by Government of Punjab to sell their products in the State of Punjab.

(3.) On 17/6/2007 the complainant drew a sample of one insecticide i.e. Pretilachlor 50% EC bearing Batch No. TR-00002, manufacturing date 20.6.2006 and expiry date 19/6/2008. While picking three originally sealed and packed containers weighing 500 mls as those were lying and stored properly from the shop premises of M/s Malka Kheti Store, Rajoke Road, Amarkot, petitioner, manufactured by M/s Rallis India Ltd. Mumbai. This is the registered and authorized manufacturing company by Government of Punjab to sell its products in the State of Punjab. The material was sold by petitioner No. 4 to petitioner No.2 in the routine course of business. One part of the sample was sent to the State Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda which was found misbranded after analysis. The second part of the sample was also found mis- branded by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. On 7.11.2008, the complaint was lodged in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, who without going into the facts and law on the point took cognizance. The complaint Annexure P1, the summoning order Annexure P2 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners being bad in the eyes of law are liable to be quashed in view of the grounds as enshrined in this petition.