NATIONAL FARM CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28th August 1991, Quality control Inspector, office of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Jind made a surprise check on the premises of M/s Shree Balaji Beej Bhandar, Bhiwani Road, Jind, and checked the stock and record of the firm. He took few samples of Methyl Parathion 50% EC which was manufacture by M/s National Farm Chemical, B-16 Industrial Area, Sikandrabad, District Bulandsahar (U.P.) One sample was sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst Quality Control Laboratory Karnal. The Analyst reported that the insecticide was misbranded. A complaint was then filed against Dal Chand Proprietor of M/s Shree Balaji Beej Bhandar, Bhiwani Road, Jind being the dealer and Shri K.R. Jain, Partner of the manufacturer M/s National Farm Chemicals for violation of Section 17-I(a) and 3(k) of (The Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') M/s. National Farm Chemicals through its partner Shri K.R. Jain has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind (Annexure P-2).

(2.) IT was alleged in the petition that the insecticide of which sample was taken was manufactured in August 1991 and its expiry date was January 1992. The petitioner was summoned when the shelf life of the sample had already expired. In this way the petitioner was deprived of this right to get the second sample examined from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and to controvert the correctness of the report of the analyst. In the complaint, it was nowhere motioned as in which manner the sample was taken. So the low active ingredients reported in the report of the analyst were either due to improper sampling or mishandling of the sample at any stage or due to faulty analysis. It was further alleged that proper sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner was not obtained as required under Section 31 of the Act. The sanction was given on a stereo typed proforma in which the names of the dealer and manufacturer were entered. There was on mention of the contents of the report of the Analyst nor there was any mention specifically regarding the provision of the law under which the petitioner was sought to be prosecuted. There was no averment in the complaint as to who was incharge of the manufacturing concern and was responsible for the conduct of its business. It had to be mentioned in the complaint that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of the petitioner in the absence of any averment to that effect, the complaint was liable to be quashed and the petitioner could not be prosecuted.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.