KHETI SEWA CENTRE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks quashing of complaint dated 28.11.2001, Annexure P-1 and the summoning order dated 28.11.2001, Annexure P-2, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, whereby petitioner has been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 3K(i), (ii), (iv), 13, 17 and 18 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act') read with Insecticide Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules') in the complaint filed by Insecticides Inspector, Ludhiana against the petitioner.

(2.) A few facts have to be focused in order to adjudicate the controversy involved in the present petition. Kanwaljit Lal, Insecticides Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Keti Sewa Centre, Nirankari Market, Ludhiana on 5.11.1997. The said firm was found to be in possession of the stock of insecticides VITAVAX 75 W.P. (Carboxing 75% W/W) manufactured by Markfed Agro Chemicals, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The said insecticides did not have batch number, date of manufacture, date of expiry and even the price was not mentioned on the packs which were weighing 500 grams each. At that time, firm was having total of 1.5 kg in three packs of 500 grams each. As the firm was found selling the insecticides in contravention of Sections 3K(i), (ii), (iv), 13, 17 and 18 and in contravention of Rules 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Rules, the stock of insecticides was seized by him vide seizure memo, Annexure R-6 in this regard. The firm had also sold the aforesaid insecticides by issuing bogus cash memo under the name of Kisan Agro Chemicals in violation of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Insecticides (Price, Stock and Display and submission of reports) Order, 1986 and also in violation of Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The matter was reported to the Manager, Markfed Agro Chemicals, SAS Nagar, Mohali which confirmed that above said firm was not their dealer and the stock in question was not supplied to the firm in question. Two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner-firm by the Chief Agricultural Officer/Licensing Officer in this regard and after considering the reply filed by the firm the Licensing Officer cancelled the license of the firm vide letter No. 5305 dated 30.12.1997, Annexure R-14. Thereafter appeal was preferred on 6.1.1998 by the petitioner-firm before the Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection) Punjab, Chandigarh which was accepted and license of the firm in question was restored, however, the firm was not allowed to sell the insecticides manufactured by M/s. Markfed Agro Chemicals. Thereafter sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was obtained under Section 31(1) of the Act and the present complaint was filed against the petitioner-accused, wherein prosecution of the petitioner-accused was sought only in respect of the aforesaid offences under the Act of 1968 and Rules of 1971 and not under any other Act. Taking into account the allegations made in the complaint and after hearing the State Counsel, petitioner-accused was summoned to face trial in respect of the aforesaid offences as per order dated 28.11.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Hence the present petition.

(3.) THE sole ground on which the quashing of the complaint in question and the summoning order has been sought on behalf of the petitioner is that the premises of the petitioner-firm was inspected on 5.11.1997 by Kanwaljit Lal, Insecticides Inspector, who took into possession the three packs of insecticides VITAVAX 75 W.P. (Carboxing 75% W/W) manufactured by Markfed Agro Chemicals, SAS Nagar, Mohali while the present complaint was filed on 28.11.2001 so as to say after a lapse of more than four years. The cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana vide order dated 28.11.2001 altogether ignoring the legal position because offence in question was punishable for two year and the cognizance was taken under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, 'Code'). In support of the stand taken, reliance was placed by him on case State of Rajasthan v. Sanjay Kumar, 1998(3) RCR(Criminal) 846 (SC) and Smt. Shailaja v. State of Karnataka, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 423.