K.C. SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint No. 103 dated 08.08.2008 under Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Insecticide Rules, 1971 titled as "Union of India v. National Seed Corporation and Ors." as pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, Summoning Order P-2 and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as stated are that Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the employees of Petitioner No. 3 i.e. M/s. National Seed Corporation (A Govt. of India Undertaking). Petitioner No. 3 is having the seed processing unit at Jalandhar and it does not sell any insecticide to the farmers and it has no sale point in the State of Punjab to sell any insecticide to the farmers. The unit put its demand for raw material time to time to its Head Office at Delhi which supplies the raw material to the unit accordingly. The routine course of business for the seed processing unit at Jalandhar, Thiram 75% WS was sent by the Head Office. This Thiram 75% WS was manufactured by M/s. Swarup Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow, which is a registered and authorized manufacturer. This manufacturing company has been authorized by the Govt. of Punjab to sell its material in the State of Punjab. On 29.10.2007, the complainant visited the premises of Petitioner No. 3 and drew a sample of Thiram 75% WS, batch No. TW- 730, manufacturing May-2007 and Expiry April-2009 while withdrawing 100x3=300 gms material out of one 20 kg. originally sealed and packed bag of the manufacturing company i.e M/s. Swarup Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow, a registered and authorized manufacturing company. The insecticide Analyst, Regional Pesticide Testing Lab, Kanpur analysed the sample in question. The test report dated 17.12.2007 of the sample of Thiram 75% WS was received in the Office of CIPMC, Jalandhar dated 13.02.2008 declaring the sample does not confirm the relevant IS specification in respect of their active ingredients contents i.e. 56.93% against 75% WS i.e. a variation of 18.07% thus the sample was misbranded.

(3.) Accordingly, a complaint was filed by the Central Insecticide Inspector and the Petitioner has been accordingly summoned for violation of the provision of Section 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968.