GARG BROTHERS AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint (Annexure P-2) under Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short) read with Rule 27 (5) of the Rules, 1971 and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 28.7.1999 the premises of petitioner was checked. During checking, complainant found 24x5 litres of Monocrotophos 36% SL. lying in the stock. Complainant selected one five litres pack bearing batch No. 087AP70 having manufacturing date 4/99 and expiry date 9/2000, manufactured and supplied by M/s. Anu Products Limited, Arya Samaj Chowk, Bathinda. Complainant purchased 750 ml. Monocrotophos 36% SL. from five litre plastic pack. Three samples were drawn and one sample was sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Bathinda. As per the test report of the sample, the same was declared mis-branded with the remarks 'the sample does not conform to IS-specifications with respect to its percent active ingredient content'. The active ingredient content was only 29.38% instead of 36% SL. Hence, the complaint was filed against the petitioner and its partners.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not be held liable if the sample was not found according to specification as the petitioner was merely a dealer of the insecticide. The insecticide had been manufactured by M/s. Anu Products Limited. The insecticide was being sold by the petitioner in sealed packets in original form. The petitioner did not and could not have ascertained whether the insecticide in any way was being manufactured in contravention of any provision of the Act. A perusal of the complaint itself reveals that the insecticide had been stored properly by the petitioner. Thus, the insecticide had remained in the same state as and when it had been acquired by the petitioner.

(3.) Admittedly, in the present case, a perusal of the report of the Public Analyst (Annexure P-l) reveals that the loose sample was drawn from the original packing. This shows that the original packing had not been tampered with by the petitioner.