JOGINDER CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-firm through its proprietor Shri Joginder Chawla has sought quashing of complaint dated 18.12.1997 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 3k(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short "the Act") read with rules 10 and 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules of 1971 (for short "the Rules) pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, and all the consequent proceedings thereof.

(2.) THE facts, as culled out from the complaint (Annexure P-2), are that on 4.7.1996, Teja Singh Sandhu, Insecticide Inspector, inspected the premises of the petitioner-firm which is in the business of selling insecticides. After introducing himself to the person present at the shop, Vijay Kumar, who was brother of the owner of the shop (Joginder Chawla), the Insecticide Inspector disclosed his intention to obtain sample of Monocrotophos 36% SL. He then checked the stock register of the firm and found that there was entry of 549/500 litres of aforesaid insecticide in the packings of five litres, 1 litre, 1/2 litre and 1/4 litre, manufactured by M/s Jaswant Rasayan Private Limited, Hisar, with manufacturing date as June 1996 and expiry date as May, 1997, bearing batch No. 231. The name of Decacrom was printed on the five litre plastic packing of Monocrotphos 36% SL. The Insecticide Inspector opened one sealed packing of five litres and purchased 750 grams of insecticide out of it against a receipt. The insecticide so purchased was put into three neat and clean plastic bottles in equal quantity and all the bottles were sealed separately, after being wrapped in white and dry pieces of cloth. All the relevant documents as required under the Act were also prepared. One sealed bottle along with from No. XX was given to Shri Vijay Kumar and the remaining two bottles were brought by the Inspector to his office. One of the two bottles was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bhatinda. As per the report received from the Laboratory, the sample was not found as per ISI specification and was, therefore, described as mis-branded. As per the result of the Analyst, the active ingredients of Monocrotophos were found 24.63% as against 36%. A show cause notice regarding the sample having been found mis-branded was, thereupon, given to the petitioner-dealer. The latter got the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, after obtaining permission of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar. This Laboratory also found the sample to be misbranded as the active ingredients were 20.4% against 36%.

(3.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint mainly on the ground that the petitioner is dealer only. He is not manufacturer of the insecticides. The sealed container containing insecticide had been purchased from the manufacturer M/s Jaswant Rasayan Private Limited Hisar. Therefore, the petitioner's claim is that no prosecution could be launched against him. It was further pleaded that sealed container, containing insecticide remained in the same state in which those were at the time of purchase. As such, protection of Section 30(3) of the Act was claimed. It was also pleaded that sample was not taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the ISI and further that sanction obtained from the State Govt. under Section 31 of the Act was not proper.