HUKAM CHAND RAMAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of complaint No. 55 dated 28.2.2006 registered under Sections 3K (1), 17,18,29,33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules 1961 as well as summoning order dated 28.2.2006.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed on 16.12.2003 by Insecticide Inspector against the petitioner by stating that respondent along with Major Singh Brar, Chief Agricultural Officer, Muktsar visited the shop of M/s Hukam Chand Raman Kumar. At that time, Mr. Raman Kumar, sole proprietor of the firm was present at the shop. The respondent introduced himself and drew sample of insecticide. As per stock register, the insecticide was manufactured in November, 2003 and date of expiry was October, 2005. Three units of insecticide were purchased by him for the purpose of sampling on record basis and three portion of sample in polythene bags. The sample was sent in the Laboratory for analysis and found 8.43% active ingredients instead of 10%, which is required and sample was declared misbranded. On the request of petitioner-firm sample was got re-analyzed and found 10.7% active ingredients instead of 10% and sample was declared misbranded again. Sanction from Director Agriculture, Punjab was received and it was found to be violative of the provisions of Insecticides Act and Rules. Accordingly, on the basis of said complaint, summoning order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mukhtsar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the complaint as well as summoning order on the ground that no reason whatsoever has been mentioned in the summoning order, whereas, while summoning a person, reasons are to be recorded as per provisions of Sections 200 and 204 of Cr.P.C. As per provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to take cognizance to examine the complainant as well as his witnesses and it is the discretion of the Magistrate to dispense with the examination of the complainant and his witnesses. Learned counsel further contends that sample was taken on 16.12.2003 and report by the Senior Analyst was submitted on 1.1.2004 thereafter the complaint was filed on 28.2.2006 i.e. after delay of two years and two and a half months.