CHOGAWAN KHETI STORE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Chogawan Kheti Store, Chogawan dealt in insecticides and Shri Lakhwinder Singh was the owner of the premises dealing in insecticides. Sulakhan Singh, Insecticides Inspector, inspected the shop of M/s Chogawn Kheti Store and took three packets of Farnoxone (2, 4-D), Sodium Salt 80% manufactured by M/s Imkemex India Ltd, Calcutta by way of sample. These packets were put into three polythene bags. Seizure memo was prepared which was signed by Tarlochan Singh, Salesman. One scaled sample was given to Tarlochan Singh and the other two samples were sent to the office of the Chief Agricultural-Officer, Amritsar. The Chief Agricultural Officer sent sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory, NH-IV Faridabad (Haryana) for analysis. The Analyst reported that the sample had shown low active ingredients and did not conform to the relevant specifications in the test requirement and thus was misbranded. The Insecticides Inspector then filed a complaint against the dealers. distributors and manufacturers for offences under sections 13, 17, 18 and 2k(i) 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The petitioners namely M/s Chogawan Kheti Store through its proprietors Lakhwinder Singh. Amrik Singh and Tarlochan Singh filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint Annexure P2 and consequent proceedings arising out of that complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate., Amritsar.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

(3.) IN the case of S.C. Sharma and others v. The State of Punjab and another, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 702. In the above-mentioned case, reliance was placed on another single bench decision of this Court reported as Raj Pal v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) CLR 700 wherein the complaint was quashed by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the sanction for the prosecution of the accused under section 31 of the Insecticides Act was issued subsequent to the filing of the complaint, it was further observed in the said authority that subsequent notification could not validate lack of jurisdiction to file the complaint.