SAHIL AGROCHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint (Annexures P-1), filed by the Insecticides Inspector, Hoshiarpur under Section 29 read with Sections 3(k) (i), 17 and 18 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1977, with a prayer to quash the complaint and the subsequent proceedings arising thereof qua them.

(2.) THE aforesaid complaint was filed against three person i.e. sub-dealer, dealer and manufacturer of the misbranded product. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the sub-dealer and dealer, respectively. The complaint was filed by Insecticides Inspector, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, alleging that on 5.1.1994, he visited the shop of M/s Sahil Agrochemicals, petitioner No. 1 herein, and drew sample of 24-D Ethyl Ester 34% DC bearing batch No. 210 AP 31, manufacturing date December, 1993 and expiry date November, 1995, manufactured by M/s ANU Products Limited (accused No. 3 in the complaint) in three original packed containers. As per the complaint, the packed insecticides was purchased by petitioner No. 1 from petitioner No. 2, namely M/s Master Di Hatti, Dasuya, who is the dealer/distributor. After taking the sample in three original packed containers, one container was sent to the Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, which was found to be misbranded as it did not conform to the ISI specification with regard to its percentage of active ingredients i.e. 24-D Ethyl Ester 30.33%, whereas the percentage printed on the sealed container was 34% EL. Thus, sample was found misbranded as per Section 3(k)(i) of the Act. In view of this report, the Insecticides Inspector filed the aforesaid complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur against the petitioners as well as against the manufacturer of the product, after obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority. All the accused, named in the complaint, were summoned to face trial.

(3.) ON issuing notice of the present petition, the respondent-State filed reply through Insecticides Inspector, Dasuya stating that as the sample of the insecticides was found misbranded, therefore, all the accused, who are the sub-dealer, dealer and manufacturer, are liable to be prosecuted under the Act. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 has violated the provisions of the Act by storing and selling misbranded insecticides. Petitioner No. 2 was also arrayed as an accused in the complaint, because he sold misbranded insecticides to petitioner No. 1. The manufacturer of the misbranded insecticide, namely M/s ANU Products Limited was also rightly arrayed as an accused. Regarding the protection, as claimed by the petitioners under Section 30(3) of the Act, it is stated that they are entitled to this protection only if they prove by leading evidence during the trial that they fulfil all the ingredients of the aforesaid Section. Therefore, no ground to quash the complaint against the petitioners is made out.