HINDUSTAN PULVERISING MILLS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the complaint filed by the Insecticides Inspector under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioners-accused. On 16.6.1994. Insecticides Inspector-Rachhpal Singh, visited the shop of M/s Karam Chand & Sons, Baghapurana along with Jarnail Singh Brar, A.D.O., Baghapurana where Sushil Kumar, Salesman of the firm was present. After disclosing his identity, the Insecticides Inspector expressed his desire to take sample of Anilogas 30% EC. Thereafter, he served a notice on Form XII upon Sushil Kumar in the presence of Jarnail Singh Brar. He took three original packs of one litre each with batch No. 44, manufacturing date May, 1994 and expiry date April, 1996 manufactured by M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills, 209-210, Anupam Bhawan, Azadpur, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi. The three packs of sample were separately sealed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. One sealed portion of the sample was handed over to Sushil Kumar. The remaining two portions of the sample were given to Paramjit Singh, Beldar, Baghapurana on 7.6.1994 who deposited the same with Harsangeer Singh, A.D.O., Faridkot in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot. Harasngeer Singh, A.D.O. sent one of the samples along with Form-XII to Punjab Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Bathinda for analysis. On analysis of the sample, it was found that it did not conform to IS specification with respect to its percentage active of 30% EC. On receipt of the analysis report, copies of the same were sent to the dealer and the manufacturer along with show cause notice bearing No. 3828-30 dated 17.8.1984. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed against M/s Karam Chand & Sons, Bhagapurana through Sushil Kumar, Salesman and itts two partners, namely, Karam Chand and Smt. Shimla Rani, who had been arrayed as accused Nos. 1(a), (b) and (c) in the complaint for violating the provisions of Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 29 of the Act and against the distributor M/s Aggarwal Trading Company, Baghapurana through Ashok Kumar, who had been arrayed as accused No. 2 and also against M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mill, Delhi through its Director-H.C. Aggarwal, Mohinder Singh Chauhan, Manager Production and M.N. Murli Kumar, Chief Chemist respectively, who had been arrayed as accused No. 3(a), (b) and (c) for committing offences under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 29 of the Act. On the basis of these allegations, the complaint was instituted on 16.4.1996 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, who summoned the accused on the same day to face the prosecution in this complaint and directed them to appear in the Court on 24.5.1996. Thereafter, fresh summons were again issued on 24.5.1996 and by that time shelf life of the same had already expired. Aggrieved by the summoning order the present petition was filed.

(2.) IT was pleaded in the petition that after the show cause No. 8537 dated 17.8.1994 was received by the petitioners, they furnished a detailed reply vide letter dated 1.9.1994 wherein a request was made for getting the sample re-analysed at the cost of the company as the report furnished by the State Insecticides Quality Control Laboratory, Bathinda was not acceptable to them. The copy of the said Letter is Annexure-P.1. Thereafter, the manufacture also moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for sending the second sample for re-analysis in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, but the same was dismissed on 28.11.1995 by the said Court on the ground that no complaint had been filed in the Court. Under these circumstances, the complaint could not be filed against the petitioners-accused and the summoning order deserves to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State.