DAULAT RAM KAMRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to the quashment of complaint under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33 read with Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and consequent proceedings taken thereunder.

(2.) IN brief. facts relevant for the disposal of the petition, as emerge, from complaint, Annexure P/I are that Shri Charan Singh Bhullar, Insecticide Inspector, filed the aforesaid complaint against present petitioner who is proprietor of M/s Daulat Ram Kamra and Sons (hereinafter referred to as the dealer) and Shri Trilok Singh proprietor of M/s United Pesticides, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Manufacturer), on the allegations that on 25.8.87 Shri Wasawa Ram, Insecticides Inspector Fazilka along with Shri Jarnail Singh, A.S.I. Fazilka went to the shop of dealer at Fazilka, and Harbans Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram Kamra proprietor was present in the shop. The Insecticide Inspector after giving intimation in writing, took sample of United Mono (monocrotophos 36% SL) of Batch No. 6 manufactured on 25.8.87. Three sealed containers of United Mono (Monocrotophos 36% SL) each measuring one litre were taken as sample vide seizure memo. Thereafter, the containers were duly sealed. The three containers were put in polythene bags which were duly sealed. Cost of the sample was also paid to the dealer at that time. One sealed sample was handed over to Harbans Lal aforesaid and the second one was sent to Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on the following day, whereas the third was kept in the office of Insecticide Inspector on 26.8.87. As per report of the Analyst, it was found that the said sample did not conform to the relevant ISI specifications in the active ingredient, as it contained only 16.71% of such ingredient, instead of 36% SL. According to the Insecticides Inspector the sample of Insecticide taken in this case was misbranded as contemplated under section 3(k)(i) of the Act. It was further pleaded that the copy of the analysis was also delivered to the dealer, vide office letter No. 20383 dated 21.10 87. In view of the report of Analyst, it was further alleged that the insecticides supplied by manufacturer to the dealer was misbranded; that the manufacturer and the dealer had jointly committed an offence punishable under Sections 17. 18, 3(k)(i) and 33 punishable under Section 29 or the Act.

(3.) IT was frankly conceded by either side that for the purpose of quashment only the allegations set out in the complaint have to be considered for deciding as to whether such allegations constitute, or,, spell out any offence, and, that resort to criminal proceedings would, in the circumstances of the present case amount to an abuse of the process of the court or not, in view of the authorities of the apex Court in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and others, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, 1983(1) RCR(Crl.) 73 (SC) : AIR 1983 SC 67.