HANUMAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hanuman Sharma, Marketing. Manager of M/s. Agro Chemicals Jaipur, Industrial Area Jaipur has moved this court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and challenged the summoning order passed against him in a complaint under Ss. 3(k) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules 1971. The main allegation in the complaint is that Aldrin 30% E.C. is manufactured by M/s. Agro Chemicals, Jaipur and when its sample was obtained on 22-1-1988 for a dealer of Abhor as a consequence of the test it was found that its active ingredient was only 21.08% and not 30% E.C. The Insecticide Inspector instituted the complaint alleging that the product was misbranded and the present petitioner has been impleaded in his capacity as the manufacturer. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 named in the original complaint were the dealers of Abhor, District Ferozepur from whom the sample was purchased and it appears that accused No. 4 is a concern of New Delhi from whom the dealer had received the product manufactured at the premises of the present petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sub-Sec. (6) of S. 22 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which is reproduced as under :-

(2.) Besides, the sanction for prosecution, Annexure P. 2 on the cyclostyle form wherein even the date on which the sample was allegedly taken does not find mention and cannot be said to be a sanction by applying mind of the appropriate authority and in this regard reliance has been placed on State v. Shayam Lal 1987 (2) FAC 198 where also the date of purchase of the sample in question was not found recorded. This plea also could not be repudiated by the learned counsel for the respondent State of Punjab.

(3.) In view of the infirmities referred to above the present petition succeeds and the complaint is quashed as a whole. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur be informed. Application allowed.