GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under the Provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and all consequential proceedings taken on the said complaint.

(2.) IN the petition, it was alleged that the petitioner was a dealer under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and had obtained a licence for selling the insecticides after purchasing the same from approved sources/manufacturers. It was alleged that on 12.6.1991, the Insecticide Inspector had taken the sample of insecticide, which was manufactured in May, 1991, having expiry date of April, 1993, from the premises of M/s Friends Kheti Bari Centre Sidhwan Bet. It was alleged that the said insecticide was manufactured by M/s Tropical Agro Systems Ltd., Madras. It was alleged that the petitioner after purchasing the said insecticides from the manufacturer had supplied the same to the said dealer. It was alleged that the said sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana for testing and it was found to be misbranded as per the test report, copy Annexure P-1. It was alleged that on receipt of the said report, the complainant filed a criminal complaint, copy Annexure P-3, after obtaining the consent, copy Annexure P-2. It was alleged that the criminal complaint, summoning order and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon against the petitioner were liable to be quashed, inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was a dealer, who had purchased the insecticide from the manufacturer and had sold the same to the retailer in the same condition as he had purchased it from the manufacturer. It was alleged that the petitioner was entitled to the protection under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act. It was alleged that the Insecticide Inspector had taken the sample from the original sealed container. It was alleged that the petitioner was deprived of his statutory and legal right to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, as the petitioner was not served with a copy of the test report. It was further alleged that the consent/sanction given under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act for the prosecution of the petitioner was not valid because it was on a cyclostyled proforma, copy Annexure P-1. It was alleged that in the said consent letter, no details were given as to who had taken the sample and what was the result of the test report etc. It was alleged that in the said consent letter, only the names of the dealers, distributor and manufacturers were mentioned. It was alleged that the said complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

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