DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DINESH Kumar Sharma and Nahar Singh have come to this Court in this petition under (sic) dated August 26, 1991 passed by the S.D.J.M., Nabha, directing the framing of charges under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Act) as well as the complaint and the proceedings taken on the basis of that complaint.

(2.) THE prosecution had been launched on the basis of complaint Annexure P-1 where in Dinesh Kumar Sharma is described as representative of M/s. Sharma Pesticides and Fertilisers (for short the Firm) while Nahar Singh is described to be the proprietor of the same Firm. The Firm had been granted licence No. 503 under Section 13(1) of the Act for selling/stocking or exhibiting for sale of insecticides. He took sample of Pestolon 50 (Isorproturon 50 W.P.) Weedcide manufactured by M/s. Pesto/Chemicals India, Delhi, having batch No. 07. This sample was taken in accordance with the provisions contained under the Act and Rule 71 made thereunder. The sample was drawn in three sealed packages of the company. All were sealed in the presence of the representative of the Firm. One of the samples was handed over to the representative of the Firm while one was sent to Insecticide Quantity Control Lab. Ludhiana for analysis. The third sample was deposited with the Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala. The cost of the samples were duly paid to the owner of the Firm. The Senior Analyst, Insecticide Quality Control Lab. Ludhiana, found the sample misbranded as it did not confirm to the specification in respect of its percentage act ingredients test. The firm and Pesto Chemicals India, the manufacturer, had, thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 29(1) of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 33 of the Act, so far as relevant reads as follows :-