D.N. CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of Criminal Misc No. 3033-M of 1993, Sat Pal v. State of Punjab. Both these petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P/1 and consequent proceedings under Section 3k(i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short) read with Rule 10 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and under Section 420, Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.

(2.) THE brief resume of the facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions is that on 3.6.1991 Baldev Singh, Insecticide Inspector, inspected the premises of M/s Gandhi Sales Corporation in the presence of Malkiat Singh and Arjan Singh and took a sample of butachlor 50% EC which was manufactured by M/s Sumex Chemicals Private Limited. For this purpose one tin containing 5 litres of butachlor 50% EC of batch No 34 was taken and after shaking the tin properly, butachlor insecticide was put in three glass bottles weighing 300 militres each. The bottles were duly sealed after the same were put in polythene bags and one packet of sealed sample was handed over to Shri Satpal owner of M/s Gandhi Sales Corporation, Amritsar. One sample was sent to the Analyst for Analysis and the third packet was kept for reference. On analysis the analyst opined that the sample was misbranded since it contained only 45.2% EC W/W of butachlor as against the guaranteed percentage of 50% as lebelled on the tin. The sample was, therefore, not in conformity with ISI specifications with respect to its percentage of active ingredients and in this way the dealer and manufacturer had committed an offence by selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale misbranded insecticide under the licence granted to them.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents it was maintained that sanction granted by the sanctioning authority was proper and legal and it was accorded after satisfaction from the perusal of the relevant record placed before him. Sat Pal was the sole proprietor of M/s. Gandhi Sales Corporation, Amritsar. So even though name of the proprietor was not mentioned in the sanction order, the proprietor was liable and sanction was proper.