SOHAN SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the Complaint Case No.92 dtd. 5/1/2018, Annexure P-1 registered for violation of Ss. 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 titled as 'State vs. M/s Kissan Fertilizers and others' as pending adjudication in the Court of Ld. CJM, Patiala and summoning order dtd. 5/1/2018, Annexure P-2 alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.

(2.) Briefly put, facts as emerge from the case are that petitioner No.1 is the proprietor of the petitioner No.2-firm, while petitioner No.3 is an ex-employee. The firm is a registered manufacturer of various kinds of insecticides and pesticides having a valid license in this regard from the appropriate authority under the Insecticides Act. It has a lab, fitted with modern equipment of testing in the factory premises, wherein each and every lot of material as manufactured is tested before it is sent out for sale in the market, leaving no scope for the product to be misbranded. However, a raid was conducted at the premises of dealer of the petitioner-firm on 13/7/2012 by Insecticide Inspector who drew a sample of insecticide, namely Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR Batch No.GCC105, having date of manufacturing as May 2012 with an expiry of 2 years. One part of the sample was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory Ludhiana for its analysis on 16/7/2012 i.e., after a period of 3 days of drawing of the sample. As per the public analyst report dtd. 30/7/2012 the sample was found to be misbranded having an active ingredient content of 2.44% as against 4%. The Department instituted a complaint for violation of Ss. 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act on 5/1/2018, wherein a notice was issued vide order of even date for 17/2/2018.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the complaint is liable to be quashed since it had been instituted on 5/8/2018 i.e., after 5 years 5 months and 6 days of the first report of public analyst dtd. 30/7/2012, thereby exceeding the limitation period of three years provided to take cognizance under Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. He relies on judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Cheminova India Limited and another vs. State of Punjab and another, (2021) 8 SCC 818, and judgment of this Court in Sher Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-17705 of 2018 decided on 5/2/2019.