HINDUSTAN PULVERISING MILLS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Prem Aggarwal partner of M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills, Azadpur, Delhi has filed the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing compliant Annexure P-1 and consequent proceedings under Sections 17 (1) and 3 (k) of the Insecticides Act, 1986 (Act for short) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind.

(2.) ACCORDING to averments made in the complaint Annexure P. 1. Quality Control Inspector Hari Singh made a surprise check on the premises of M/s Hanuman Seed Store, Krishna Street, Narwana on August 31, 1988. He checked the stocks of the firm and drew a sample of Endosulphan 35% (Endohit) which was manufactured by the petitioner. The sample was sent for analysis of Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal, Haryana, who in his report declared the insecticide as misbranded. A show cause notice was sent to the firm alongwith copy of Analysis report. M/s Hanuman Seeds Store Narwana and the petitioner who is manufacturer of the article were alleged to have violated the provisions of the Act. Hence the complaint was filed.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondent it was maintained that there was no provision in the Act to send the analysis report to the manufacturing firm and it was for the dealer appointed by the petitioner to apply for retesting of the insecticide within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the analysis report as provided under Section 24 (3) of the Act. It was further contended that since the sample was found misbranded the petitioner was liable for the offence being manufacturer of Endosulphan and for supplying misbranded insecticide to his dealer. Regarding consent order it was alleged that permission for initiation of prosecution against the dealer and manufacturer was validly granted and the complaint was not liable to be quashed on account of any infirmity on that parties.