TILAK RAM DEVI DAYAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner firm has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint (Annexure P-1) filed against it under Sections 3k(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 27 of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 by the Insecticide Inspector and further for quashing all the consequent proceedings arising out of the said complaint.

(2.) PETITIONER is a licensed dealer who deals in selling the insecticides in packed condition as packed by the manufactures. A sample of Monochrotophos 36% SL bearing Batch No. Q 107, having manufacturing date January, 1999 and expiry date June, 2000 was taken from it on 30.6.1999 which was found to be mis-branded by the Public Analyst. Thereupon, the aforesaid complaint was filed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner further submitted that on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, in which sample of insecticide taken from the petitioner was found to be mis-branded, its licence was revoked under Section 14 of the Act by the Licensing Authority vide order dated 21.10.1999. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. In the said appeal, the petitioner took the aforesaid plea and claimed the protection under Section 30(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 1.2.2000 allowed the said appeal while holding that the petitioner is entitled for protection under Section 30(3) of the Act being dealer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this fact also, the complaint filed by the Insecticide Inspector against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.