MOHINDER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 3 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the manufacturing of Insecticides and Pesticides including Butachlor 50% EC, Petitioner No. 1 is its marketing in-charge whereas petitioner No. 2 is its Director. It is alleged that on 17-6-1999, the Insecticide Inspector took a sample of Butachlor 50% EC bearing batch No. 418, from the premises of M/s. Goyal Beej Bhandar, Palwal. The date of manufacturing of this insecticide was May, 1998 and that of its expiry was April, 2000. The sample taken by the Inspector was sent to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides), Karnal. After analysis, the sample was found misbranded as its active ingredient content was found to be 41.94% vide report Annexure P-1.

(2.) Copy of the test report along with show cause notice was sent to the petitioners vide letter No. 4204-05, dated 20-8-1999 which was received by them on 30-8-1999. In reply to the show cause notice, they gave a detailed reply (Annexure P-2) vide letter No. HPN/99/157 dated 20-9-1999 contesting the correctness of the report of the analyst. They also made a specific request for sending the second part of the sample for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory as per the provisions contained in Section 24(3) and Section 24(4) of the Act. It was also mentioned in the reply that another sample of the same batch of Butachlor had been re-tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, and it was found to be conforming to the ISI specifications, as per report dated 16-3-1999 (Annexure-P3). In spite of this, the Insecticide Inspector did not send the sample in question for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, and instead, filed a complaint (Annexure P-4) against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, on 25-1-2000. By the time the petitioners were ordered to be summoned by the Court, shelf-life of the sample had already expired and there was no time left with them to apply to the Court for sending the second sample for re-analysis. They were thus deprived of their valuable right of getting the second part of the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24 of the Act without any fault on their part, and, thereby, they were prejudiced in their defence. Besides, it was also pleaded that there had been non-compliance of Section 33 of the Act as there was no allegation even that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the incharge and are responsible for the conduct of business of the company.

(3.) On the basis of above averments, it was prayed that complaint, Annexure P-4, as well as the consequent proceedings arising out of it be quashed.