NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint No. 79 dated 02.03.2007 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rules 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 titled as State v. Punjab Khad Store and Ors. pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala and summoning order and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the Petitioners.

(2.) Facts, in short, are that the Petitioner firm is the licensee under Insecticides Act, 1968 to deal in various kind of insecticides and pesticides of registered and approved manufactured companies by Government of India as well as by the Government of Punjab. The Petitioner firm sells only originally sealed and packed insecticides/pesticides as packed by registered manufacturing companies, who are authorized by Government of Punjab to sell their products in the State of Punjab and whose addition have been made by the Licensing Authority in the license of the Petitioner firm. As per the complainant version, on 07.07.2005, he drew a sample of one insecticide i.e. Monocrotophos 36% SL being batch No. 028 with manufacturing dated 22.05.2004 and expiry date 21.10.2005, while picking three originally sealed and packed containers, each weighing one it, as were lying and stored properly from the shop premises of the Petitioner firm as manufactured by M/s. Shreejii Pesticides Pvt. Limited Vadodara, Gujarat. In this way, all the three representatives parts of the sample were drawn out of original packing of the manufacturing company. The said manufacturing company i.e. M/s. Shreeji Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Vadodara, Gujarat is the registered and authorized manufacturing company by Government of Punjab to sell its products in the state of Punjab. One part of the sample was sent to State Insecticide Testing Lab, Amritsar and same was found misbranded after analysis. The second part of the sample was found misbranded by Central Insecticide Lab. Faridabad. Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the present Petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. The Petitioners have been summoned in the said complaint vide order dated 02.03.2007.

(3.) While impugning the complaint as well as the summoning order, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the sample was drawn from the originally sealed and packed containers. As such, the Petitioners are not responsible for the manufacturing defect, if any. The same is the responsibility of the manufacturing Company. It is further stated that there is no allegation of tampering with the original packing.