YOGESH SOOD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing complaint, Annexure P-1 dated 24.9.1993, under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, read with Rules 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, and for quashing all consequential proceedings thereof.

(2.) PETITIONER who is a licensee under the Insecticide Act (licence issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur), deals in selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale different types of pesticides. As per allegations made in complaint, Annexure P-1, the Insecticide Inspector inspected the premises of the petitioner on 18.6.1992 and took sample of Butachlor 50% EC know as weedicide bearing Batch Mark-238. Three sealed tins of Butachlor 50% EC were purchased by the Insecticide Inspector measuring one litre each. One tin of sample was sent to the Senior Analyst PAS-I, Insecticide Testing Lab., Amritsar, for analysis, and the said sample was declared as misbranded by the Senior Analyst on the ground that the sample did not conform to the ISI specification in respect of its percentage active ingredient contents. On the basis of the report of the Analyst, the present complaint has been filed. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur, while exercising his powers under Section 14 of the Insecticide Act also cancelled the licence of the petitioner for selling insecticide/weedicide. The order of cancellation was impugned by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, i.e. Deputy Director (LCPP), Punjab, Chandigarh, who vide order dated 15.3.1993 opined that after perusing the entire case, I have come to the conclusion that there is no fault on the part of the appellant and the sample was found misbranded due to manufacturing defect. Therefore, this appeal is accepted and the licence of the appellant is restored and a direction is given for taking necessary action to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur." Quashing has been sought on the ground that the order vide which licence of the petitioner was cancelled, has been set aside by the Deputy Director (LCPP) exercising the power of Appellate Authority under Section 15 of Insecticide Act. Thus, according to the petitioner, the complaint is liable to be quashed as the finding with regard to misbranding of the sample has been set aside. Counsel for the State has fairly conceded that the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order vide which licence of the petitioner was cancelled. I find from the order that the appellate Authority after security of the case, came to the conclusion that the failure of the sample being sub-standard/misbranded was not on account of fault of the dealer, but because of manufacturing defect. This, I am of the view that compliant, Annexure P-1 is liable to be quashed. For this, I find support from judgement reported as Birbal v. State of Punjab, 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 687, and of Supreme Court in M/s Kissan Beej Bhandar, Abhor v. Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur, decided on 10.11.1989, is S.L.P. No. 4612 of 1989, and also in Ram Murti Gupta v. State of Punjab, decided on 21.7.1994 in Criminal Misc No. 11497-M of 1993.