GANGA SAHAI M PATHAK Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ganga Sahai M.Pathak has filed this petition against State of Punjab under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint tilted "State through Gurbachan Singh Insecticide Inspector Zira vs. M/s Sarpanch Pesticides Zira and others under Sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27 (5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 and summoning order dated 13.04.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. It is mainly stated in the petition that petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (for breveity 'the Act') dealing with offences by companies. Section 33 of the Act would be attracted to a person who is incharge of quality control and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. In the instant case, Nitin Mehta has been specifically appointed as the person responsible by M/s Prescient Industries Limited for the very purpose of quality control of manufactured insecticides in terms of Section 33 of the Act. Thus, it is only Nitin Mehta who can be prosecuted for any alleged defeat in quality of insecticides manufactured by the company.

(2.) IT is further stated in the petition that Director of Agriculture Haryana has also issued letter with reference to letter issued of Addl. Secretary Government of India with regard to deletion of the names of the Chairman -cum -Managing Director in consent order. It is also stated in the petition that there is violation of Section 24(4) of the Act and the procedure adopted by the prosecution has frustrated and defeated the intent and purpose of Section 24(4) of the Act which confers an important and valuable right to accused to get counter sample attested in Central Insecticides Laboratory. In the instant case, firstly the alleged sample was sent directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and not to the insecticides Analyst, which has defeated the valuable right of the petitioner to get the counter sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Further, the complaint is filed and petitioner has been summoned on 13.04.2007 i.e. after the expiry of the shelf life of the sample. It is further stated in the petition that sample drawn by complainant at the time of inspection does not confirm with the standard method, making the sample vulnerable to adverse results. It is also stated in the petition that perusal of the consent sanction reveals that it does not contain grounds of satisfaction nor it shows that all relevant facts were produced before sanctioning authority.

(3.) NOTICE was given to the State and reply was filed. Today, additional reply with better particulars by way of affidavit of Balwinder Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Zira has been filed by the learned State counsel and the same is taken on record.