A.L. BATRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code) relates to quashment of complaint, Annexure P/s filed under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter. referred to as the Act) against M/s. Surindera Pesticides who holds licence for stock and sale of insecticides through its partner Varinder Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the licenced dealer) as well against M/s. Jai Chemicals, Fridabad and its partners A. L. Batra and D.V, Batra, (hereinafter referred to as the manufacturers) and consequent proceedings taken thereunder, including, summoning order dated 27th of September, 1988 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from complaint Annexure P/1 are that on 22-9-1987 Shri Ram Pal Singh, Insecticides Inspector took sample of Benzene Hexa Chloride (B.H.C.) 10 per cent dust (having Concentration of 1.3 per cent Gamma Isomer from, the premises or the licenced dealer in the presence of its representative Bhim Singh, Technical Operator. The aforesaid pesticides were manufactured by the manufacturer. The sample so taken was divided into three portions, each portion was separately sealed. One such sample was sent for analysis to Senior Analyst Quality Control (Insecticides) Laboratory, Karnal. After analysis the said sample was found misbranded, as per report of the Senior Analyst conveyed to the complainant through letter No. 779 dated 30th of September, 1987. The report revealed that there was variation of the Tecnical contents Garmna isomer., by 0.2 per cent from I.C.I. specification of 1.3 per cent. Copy of the analysis report and show cause notice was sent to the licenced dealer, and after obtaining consent the impugned complaint has been filed both against the manufacturer as well as the licenced dealer.

(3.) THE first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Plant Protection Officer is not legally empowered to file the complaint, or launch prosecution under Section 31 of the Act on the basis of the consent given by Director of Agriculture Haryana. This argument is based mainly on the ground that the State Government had delegated powers for filing the complaint to the Director Agriculture Haryana, vide Government notification dated 24th April, 1977 and the Director Agriculture was not empowered to further delegate those powers to the present complainant.