SURINDER KUAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Kaur and Kulwant Kaur seek quashing of the complaint under Sections 3-K, 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1968') read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, filed by State of Punjab through Insecticides Inspector, Bathinda, wherein petitioner-accused as well as their co-accused Inder Singh and Lallinder Singh Dhindsa, Managing Director, M/s. Bharti Minerals, 304-A, 35/36, Bhandari House, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Complex, Delhi, who have been arryaed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, had been summoned as accused to face trial as per order dated 17.12.1998 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda.

(2.) IN order to focus the controversy involved in the present petition, a few facts need to be noticed.

(3.) COUNSEL representing the petitioners-accused while seeking quashing of the complaint, made many-fold submissions before me : firstly, that the sample in question was taken from the shop of the petitioner on 5.8.1992 while the complaint was instituted on 25.1.1996, and the complaint being barred by limitation, cognizance of the allegations made in the complaint could not have been taken by the Magistrate. Secondly, there was no allegation made in the report lodged that the petitioners were responsible for the conduct of the business of M/s. Makkar and Company and the petitioners being Parda Nashin Ladies and not being active functioning partners, prosecution could not be launched against them. Thirdly, sanction for prosecution of the petitioners- accused had not been granted by the Controller and rather it was given by the Joint Director, A.S.D.P., Punjab Chandigarh, who had no authority to sanction prosecution of the petitioners. Lastly, that the sample was drawn from a sealed container which had been manufactured by respondent No. 3 and as there were no allegations of tampering with the seal of the container in any manner, petitioners could not be made to face the prosecution qua the contents of the container. These submissions were countered from the side of the respondents. It was pointed out by the State counsel that delay in lodging the report occurred because sanction for the prosecution of the petitioners-accused was granted by the Joint Director, A.S.D.P., Punjab Chandigarh on 18.11.1993 and on this account as well as administrative reasons, the complaint came to be filed on 25.1.1996 and taking into consideration these circumstances, the trial Court had condoned the delay as was spelled out from the order dated 17.12.1998. Reliance was placed on the observations made in Mihir Kumar Dutta v. B. Mukherjee and another, 199(1) RCR(Criminal) 100. It was further contended that question of delay was inter-linked with the question of law and it is only after leading evidence, it can be established whether complainant had been able to establish the circumstances which led to the delay in filing of the complaint and whether any prejudice had resulted to be accused on that account. With regard to the stand taken on behalf of the petitioners that they were not actively involved in the conduct of M/s. Makkar and Company, it was pointed out that they had earlier filed Criminal Revision No. 43 dated 30.7.1996 which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, on 28.10.1997 and that order having not been challenged had attained finality and for that reason, the petitioners cannot re-agitate the matter. Apart from the above position, definite accusations had been made against the petitioners-accused that they were responsible for the conduct of business of their firm and these specific allegations have to be determined on the basis of evidence brought on record. The case is at the initial stage and evidence has not been recorded so far. With regard to the protection granted to the dealer under Section 33 of the Act of 1968, reference was made to the fact that sample in question was taken from loose packing and in view of the position explained in case M/s. Punjab Pesticide v. State of Punjab, 1998(4) RCR(Crl.) 648, no benefit could be derived by the petitioners. Regarding the sanction granted, it was urged that the sanction had been granted by the competent authority as envisaged under the provisions of Act of 1968.