MITTAL PESTICIDES Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of complaint dated 6.7.1992 (Annexure-P.4) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, pleading that the complaint had been filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide sample of which was taken by the Insecticides Inspector despite the request made for re-analysis of the sample from the Central Insecticides Laboratory before the expiry of its shelf life and that the Insecticides Inspector was not authorised to take sample from M/s Mittal Pesticides, Kotkapura as on the date when the same was taken he was not appointed as Insecticides Inspector, Kotkapura in terms of Section 20 of the Act.

(2.) M /s Mittal Pesticides, Kotkapura was dealing in insecticides/pesticides under Licence No. 60/50 dated 1.1.1992 issued by the Licensing Authority i.e. Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot. On 28.8.1991, Hardev Singh, claiming himself to be Insecticides Inspector, Kotkapura, had visited shop of M/s Mittal Pesticides, Kotkapura in the presence of Balbir Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Kotkapura. Parmod Kumar, Patner of the aforesaid partnership concern was present at the shop. After disclosing his identity, the Insecticides Inspector expressed his desire to draw a sample of Mocrotophos 36% SL (Anucron) manufactured by M/s S.N. Chemicals Industries, Faridabad proforma-respondent herein-accused No. 2 in the complaint). The sample was drawn as per prescribed procedure. One sealed sample and one Form- XII was handed over to Parmod Kumar at the spot and remaining two portions of the sample were deposited with Major Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Faridkot in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot on 29.8.1991 through Ajit Singh, Beldar, Kotkapura. Major Singh sent one portion of the sample to the Director, Plant Protection Querantini and Storage Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad on 30.8.1991. On analysis, the sample was found to be mis-branded as it did not conform to the relevant specifications in its active ingredient content requirement which was found to be 31.9% instead of 36% SL. Thereafter, the copy of the analysis report was served upon the dealer and manufacturer along with show cause notice. After obtaining necessary sanction for the prosecution of the petitioners under Section 31(1) of the Act, the present complaint for violating Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act was filed against the petitioners-accused in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. The petitioners-accused were summoned by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, summons for which was received by them on 25.8.1992. Aggrieved by the summoning order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.