DWARKA DASS SHAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28th July, 1988 Shri Jasbir Singh Insecticides Inspector visited the premises of M/s Dwarka Dass Sham Lal, Nabha Gate, Patiala and took the Sample of Phorat (sid) batch No. 06022 manufacture by Omega Agro Private Limited in the presence of Sham Lal proprietor of the said firm who signed the seizure memo. The sample was taken in accordance with the provisions of Insecticide Act 1968 (for short the Act) and Rule 1971 made thereunder. The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed in three packages in the presence of Sham Lal accused. One of the package was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory Faridabad for analysis through the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala. One sample was handed over to Sham Lal accused and the third sample was deposited with Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala. The Senior Analyst, Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad found the sample to be misbranded as it did not conform the Ist specifications in respect of the percentage of active ingredients test. After obtaining the necessary sanction under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 from the Joint Director of Agriculture, Punjab for prosecution of accused, the Insecticides Inspector filed complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for violation of clauses 3(1)(i) and 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 punishable under Section 29(1) of the said Act against the dealer as well as against its manufacturer for violation of Section 3(k)(i) of the Insecticides Act.

(2.) DEALER firm through its partner Sh. Sham Lal Seeks the quashment of the said complaint and resultant proceedings there from through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter-alia on the ground that the complaint was filed after the expiry of shelf dated on the insecticide which has debarred the petitioner of his valuable right under Section 24 of the Act for getting it retested from the Central Laboratory. It is further maintained that the sample having been got analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad and not from the State Laboratory has resulted in denying the petitioner of his right to get the sample retested from the Central Laboratory. The sample having not taken in the original sealed container as required under Section 22(5) of the Act is also averred. The delivery of the report of the Analyst beyond the period of 60 days in contravention of Section 24(1) of the Act was also taken. Objection regarding the sanction having been granted for the prosecution of the petitioner without due application of mind was also taken. The objection regarding the lack of averments in the complaint as to which partner was the incharge of the firm and responsible for the conduct of the business was also taken.

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