M.L. INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC filed by the accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under the Insecticide Act and the rules framed thereunder and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon.

(2.) ACCUSED petitioner No. 1 M/s M.L. Industries is the manufacturer of the insecticide which was found to be misbranded, not only by the State Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal but later on also by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Hyderabad, under Section 24(2) and 24(4) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 respectively. Accused petitioners 2 and 3 namely Dr. Harish Manchanda and Arjun Lal Chandani are the two partners of the said firm and out of these the petitioners, petitioner No. 3 is the responsible person on behalf of the petitioner No. 1-manufacturing company. The Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, on behalf of the State of Haryana, filed the criminal complaint under Section 29(3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder for violation of the various provisions of the Insecticide Act, against the accused petitioners (manufacturer and its partners) and also against the dealer M/s Surinder Pal and Company and its proprietor Surinder Pal. The said complaint is dated 17.8.1992, copy Annexure P2. On the same day the accused were ordered to be summoned by the learned CJM, Sirsa. Accused petitioners filed the present petition dated 3.10.1996, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint, summoning order and all subsequent proceeding taken thereon. Inter alia, it was alleged that as per the complaint, the sample was drawn on 29.8.1991 and the manufacturing date of the insecticide was July, 1991 and the expiry date was June, 1992, whereas complaint was filed on 17.8.1992 and by that time the shelf life of the insecticide had already expired and there was no time with the accused petitioners to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, as provided under Section 24(4) of the Insecticide Act. It was alleged that in this manner, the petitioners were deprived of exercising their right of getting the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It was further alleged that in the complaint it had not been specifically alleged that petitioners 2 and 3 were "incharge of the business of the petitioner No. 1 and were responsible for the business of the petitioner No. 1". It was alleged that on this ground as well, the complaint is required to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.