HARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Harminder Singh son of Parmatma Singh, proprietor of M/s. Sodhi Kheti Sewa Centre, Zira, has filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint filed against him under the Insecticides Act and the consequent proceedings taken thereon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. As per allegations made in the complaint, on 2.8.1989 a sample of insecticide was taken from the shop of the petitioner. The sample was divided into three, parts; one was given to the petitioner, another was sent to the Analyst for test and the third one was kept for being produced in Court. The sample was sent to the State Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and on analysis the product was found to be misbranded. Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the petitioner (dealer), and also against the manufacturer namely M/s United Pesticides, Hari Palace Road, Ambala City. Quashing has been sought inter alia on the grounds; (i) that on the same facts, the complaint has been quashed qua the manufacturer by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 3737-M of 1991; (ii) that on receipt of report of the Analyst, a request was made for getting the third sample analysed from the Central Laboratory at the cost and expense of the manufacturer, but the sample was not sent for re-testing and in this way, petitioner has been deprived of the valuable right to get the sample re-analysed.

(2.) IT is not disputed that on 30.10.1989, i.e. before the filing of complaint, Annexure P-1, an application was filed by the manufacturer with a prayer that the complainant be directed to produce the sample in Court and the sample may be got analysed from any laboratory at the cost and expense of the petitioner. Despite the prayer made in the application, neither the sample was produced in Court, nor was sent for re-testing. Under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the Insecticides Act, the Court at its own discretion or at the request of the complainant or accused, can cause the sample of insecticides produced before it to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Laboratory. Admittedly, the sample was not produced for re-analysis, at the request made on behalf of manufacturer who was co-accused in the complaint and in this way, the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right to get the sample re- analysed. These very grounds prevailed upon the Court at the time the complaint qua the manufacturer was quashed in Criminal Misc. No. 3737-M of 1991. Accordingly, the complaint against the petitioner too deserves to be quashed, being an abuse of process of the Court.