SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANDHU Singh and two other partners of M/s. Kissan Pesticides and Seed Centre Mandi Road, Sultanpur Lodhi filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside complaint filed under Sections 3K(1), 17, 18, 19 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short) read with Rules 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioners after obtaining a licence from the Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala for the purpose of selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale different types of Insecticides carried on their business at Sultanpur Lodhi. The Insecticides Inspector inspected their premises on 12.11.1990 and took a sample of three sealed packets if B.H.C. 50% from them. At the time of taking the sample the packets were in sealed condition and were properly stored. Each packet contained 500 grams of B.H.C. 50%. One sample was sent for analysis to the Senior Technical Assistant, Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh. As per report of the Insecticides Analyst, the sample was found misbranded as it did not conform to the relevant ISI specifications.

(3.) IN the return filed by respondent, it was pleaded that Harbans Singh one of the partners of the firm M/s Kissan Pesticides and Seed Centre. Sultanpur, Lodhi appeared before the trial Court on 3.1.92 before the self life of the sample had expired and he also moved an application for re-analysis but his application was rejected as it was not filed within 28 days of the receipt of the notice. As regards the protection under Section 30(3) claimed by the petitioners it was maintained that there was nothing to indicate that the packets were sealed by the manufacturer or that the material in question was purchased from M/s United Pesticides Ambala City in sealed condition. This was a matter to be decided by the Trial court after evidence was led. Regarding sanction it was pleaded that sanction was proper and was granted after due application of mind by Joint Director, Agriculture.