BAYER INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint dated August 25, 1998 filed under Section 3K(1), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The aforesaid complaint has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition.

(2.) A perusal of the complaint shows that on March 10, 1997, the Insecticide Inspector visited the premises of M/s Zimindara Sewa Centre, Handiaya Bazar, Barnala and drew a sample of insecticide. While taking the sample, a seizure memo of the even date i.e. March 10, 1977 was prepared by him, upon which a declaration was also counter signed by the dealer. As per seizure memo (appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition), the batch number and the manufacturing date of the sample are indicated as 6H-06 BPS-004 April 13, 1996 whereas the date of expiry of the aforesaid sample is indicated as April 12, 1997. Upon analysis of the said sample, the insecticide was found to be misbranded and, therefore, a complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector after the expiry of almost one and half years from the date of taking of the sample. The report of the analyst is dated March 18, 1977 and has also been appended as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

(3.) MR . Aman Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has laid emphasis on the fact that in the present case although the shelf life of the sample of the insecticide was indicated as April 12, 1977 but the complaint itself was filed on April 25, 1998 and in these circumstances the right of the petitioners to have a re-analysis from the Central Insecticide Laboratory in terms of Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 has been lost. Mr. Kashyap submits that once valuable right of the petitioners has been lost because of the delay in serving the show cause notice upon the petitioners (which according to the complaint itself was issued on September 28, 1997) and the complaint itself had been filed in August 1998, the complaint against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Mr. Kashyap relies upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd., 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 540 (SC) to support his submissions.