SANDOZ (INDIA) LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner company, through its authorised signatory, has prayed for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-4) filed by the Insecticides Inspector under Sections 2K(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) THE petitioner company had been manufacturing insecticides and pesticides and selling the same through various distributors throughout India. M/s. Guru Nanak Kheti Store, Link Road, Jagraon was one of its appointed dealers for selling insecticides and pesticides. On 22.9.1994, Insecticides Inspector took samples of Ekalus (Quinalphos) 20% AF bearing Batch No. PTF 4 E/002201 manufactured in the month of May, 1994 from the shop of the aforesaid dealer. The said sample was taken in a sealed container contained in 100 ML packing. At that time, Form No. XII was filled up by the Insecticides Inspector, wherein the date of expiry of the sample was mentioned as April, 1996. Out of three samples taken, one was sent to the Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar for analysis. As per the report of the Analyst dated 15.10.1994, the sample was misbranded. It was found containing only 22.25% active ingredient content instead of 20% AF Ekalux. In the report dated 15.10.1994, there was some clerical mistake with regard to name of the insecticides. Consequently, the amended report dated 7.11.1994 was issued, wherein it was clarified that in the previous report Quinalphos 25% AF was written instead of 20% AF.

(3.) THE respondent neither sent the second sample for analysis nor replied any of the letters written by the dealer as well as the petitioner company. Subsequently, on 9.3.1996, respondent filed the complaint (Annexure P-4) in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, against the petitioner company as well as its dealer. The said complaint came up for first hearing before the trial Court on the same day. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 9.3.1996 (Annexure P-5), while dispensing with the mandatory provisions of recording preliminary statement, ordered that the accused be summoned for 19.4.1996. On 19.4.1996 and 25.9.1996, the summons issued to the petitioner company were not received back either served or unserved. Therefore, vide order dated 6.8.1996, the Magistrate ordered issuance of non- bailable warrants against the petitioner for 4.9.1996, on which date the petitioner company appeared and the case was adjourned for pre-charge evidence. By that time, shelf life of the sample had already expired. Therefore, the petitioner company was not in a position to exercise its right provided under Section 24(3) of the Act to get the second sample analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory.