SURINDER PAL SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Pal Singh Saini, Regional Sales Manager, Montari Industries Ltd., Ludhiana has moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the complaint Annexure P1 and the proceedings arising out of it instituted by the Insecticide Inspector, Patiala under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for alleged violation of Section 3(k) (i) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts as alleged are that Sh. Narinder Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Patiala checked the premises of M/s. Gupta Agro Sales Agency Devigarh on 28.11.1988 and took a sample of Milron 75 WP Batch No. 40 alleged to have been manufactured by Montari Industries Ltd., District Hoshiarpur and according to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was not found in conformity to the I.S.I. specifications in respect of its percentage of active ingredients. The petitioner, inter alia, has alleged that the complaint is liable to be quashed inasmuch as there was no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 31 of the Act. Even otherwise, the alleged sanction Annexure P.3 is in the cyclostyle form after filling the blanks and it was illegal and invalid the Milron sample was drawn on 28.11.1988 and the complaint was instituted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala on 25.10.1990 after about two years from the date of its manufacture inasmuch as batch No. 40 was manufactured in October, 1988 and it expired in September, 1990 that the petitioner had been denied the opportunity of getting the sample re-analyzed under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act that there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner and his name only finds mention in the title of the complaint, that the premises of the manufacturer are located in village Tansa in District Hoshiarpur and the petitioner has his office at Ludhiana and the Court at Patiala had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out that the alleged sample was taken on 28.11.1988 and the batch No. 40 of the Insecticide was manufactured in October, 1988 and its period of expiry was September, 1990. The complaint was instituted on 25.10.1990 and the impugned order was passed on 23.12.1992 by some other officer in the absence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. On behalf of the respondent it could not be explained that how the impugned order could be passed by some official if the Chief Judicial Magistrate himself was on causal leave. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the complaint did contain the details as to what should have been the percentage of lcoproturon and what was deficient of excess found in the sample in question. Here, Salil Singhal v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) RCR 336 has been referred to wherein it was held that if life of the Insecticide had expired and the accused had no opportunity to getting it re-analysed the proceedings instituted were liable to be quashed. Even the perusal of the notice Annexure R.2 shows that the manufacturer was served with notice on 9.1.1989 whereas the sample had expired on 31.10.1988. These pleas of facts and law have not been rebutted substantially. The conclusion is that the petition succeeds and the complaint in question and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Petition succeeds.