JAI CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the complaint (Annexure P-1) pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom be quashed, being abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) THE brief resume of the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 10.10.1990 Gurmej Singh, Insecticide Inspector inspected the premises of M/s. Malwa Pesticides Seeds Store Rama and took a sample of Malathion 50% E.C. in the presence of Bikkar Singh. At the time of taking of sample three packings of 250 mls. of batch No. DF 02 were purchased. Date of manufacture was June 1990 and Date of expiry was May, 1991. This Insecticide was manufactured by M/s. Jai Chemicals, Mathura Road, Faridabad. One sealed packet was handed over to Rakesh Kumar of M/s. Malwa Pesticide and Seed Store Rama and the other two samples were deposited in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda. The sealed samples were sent later on to the Director (RL) Officer Incharge, 92 Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh. The Test Report was received in the office on 7th January, 1991 according to which the sample of Insecticide Malathion 50% E.C. was not found according to I.S.I. Specification on account of acidity. A registered notice was sent to the defaulting firm along with a copy of the Test Report and so also a Registered Notice was sent to the manufacturer, by Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda on 22.1.1991. Since the dealer was selling insecticide which was sub- standard, a complaint was filed in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda against the dealer as well as against the manufacturer.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents, it was maintained that petitioner No. 2 was the Production Manager of M/s. Jai Chemicals, manufacturer of substandard insecticide and incharge of the firm, so was liable to be prosecuted. The petitioner company was duly supplied a copy of the analysis report along with the show-cause notice dated 22.1.1991 in which it was specifically pointed out that sample of insecticide was found sub- standard as percentage of its active ingredients was found 48.70 instead of 50 per cent. It was admitted that the complaint was filed in court on 15.10.1991 but this fact was denied that the petitioner learnt about the institution of the complaint after long delay. Regarding sanction it was pleaded that the same was granted by the competent authority after applying his mind and after completing all the formalities. It was further averred that the petitioner was in no way deprived of his right under Section 24(4) of the Act as the sample had already been analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and they were afforded full opportunity to get the sample retested from the Laboratory.