BALDEV KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are partners of M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Gur Bazar, Malout, have moved this Court for quashing complaint under Sections 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and Rule 27 (5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, filed against them and the manufacturer M/s. Thakar Chemicals, New Delhi. The manufacturer has not been made a party to this petition. In the petition, it is stated that the dealer has violated Sections 3 (k) (i), 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by selling misbranded insecticides, and the manufacturer violated Sections 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, and 33 of the Act by manufacturing and selling misbranded insecticides.

(2.) THE only ground on which the petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the FIR is that the sample was taken on 24th July, 1990 in Form XII, giving details of the name of the insecticide, batch number, expiry date etc. The date of manufacturing was May 1990, whereas the expiry date was April 1991, The complaint was filed in Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidarbaha, on March 20, 1991, and the summonses were issued for 16th May, 1991, and on the date they appeared in the Court, they found that the expiry date of the insecticide was April 1991; resultantly, they were deprived of the valuable right to get the sample reanalysed from the Central Inseciticides Testing Laboratory under Section 24 (4) of the Act. The provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act are mandatory, but in the instant case the said provisions have been rendered nugatory, since the petitioners were summoned for a date after the expiry date.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the Agricultural Development Officer, Malout, on behalf of the State, it is stated that the Insecticide Inspector took the sample in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the statute and the rules framed thereunder. He gave one container of sealed sample to the petitioners, from whom the sample was taken. On receipt of the result from the the Punjab Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, the petitioners were duly served with a show cause notice, along with copies of test reports by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot, vide letter No. 13279 dated 27th September, 1990. After receipt of the report, the petitioners could get the sample reanalysed under Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act. The test report issued by the Punjab Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, was served upon the petitioners before the date of expiry of the sample, i. e. April 1991. He submits that the right of the petitioners to get the sample re-analysed was not violated.