JINDAL BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint dated 2-4-1992 (Annexure P-7) filed by Baldev Singh, Insecticide Inspector against the petitioners under Sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha.

(2.) The facts as narrated in the complaint may be briefly recapitulated. On 9-9-1991, Insecticide Inspector, Gidderbaha visited the shop of M/s. Jindal Brothers, Gandhi Chowk, Gidderbaha and took sample of three original packings of 250 ml. Monocrotophos 36 Sl Batch No. 573-1. This insecticide was manufactured by M/s. Bharat Pesticides Manufacturing Company, petition No. 2, which is a unit of M/s. Bharat Insecticides and is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. One sample was sent to the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. The expert analysed the sample and found that active ingredients were 38.09% as against 36% and the sample did not conform to specification with respect to its active ingredients. Proceedings were, therefore, launched against the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners alleged that the Chief Agricultural Officer issued a show cause notice to them on 15-10-1991 stating therein that the sample of Monocrotophos 36% drawn on 9-9-1991 was found misbranded as it contained higher active ingredients. Replies were sent to this show cause notice wherein a request was made for re-analysis of the sample by Central Insecticides Laboratory but the sample was not sent for reanalysis. On 3-12-1991, petitioner No. 1 filed an application in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidderbaha for getting the sample reanalysed but reply of this application was submitted, when self-life of the sample had expired and the application was rejected on this ground. The complaint was filed on 2-4-1992 and due to this late filing of the complaint, the petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to get the second sample analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and the complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground alone. It was further pleaded that the consent, under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act contemplated, consent in writing by the State Government or a person authorised by the State Government in favour of another officer who could file a complaint in the Court but the consent in the present case was not proper and consequently the complaint filed was bad in law on the ground that the consent referred to the breaches by the Dealer only and not by the Manufacturer. It was given without recording grounds for being satisfied and it did not show that Joint Director was authorised to give consent on behalf of State Government. It was given in a mechanical manner without application of mind, on a cyclostyled form. A further plea that petitioner No. 1 acquired the insecticide in question in sealed tins from duly licensed manufacturer and was, thus, protected under the provisions of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act was also raised.