NAGINDERA TRADING CO. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks quashing of complaint Annexure P-1 and consequent proceedings initiated under the said complaint i.e. summoning order and notice dated 23.7.1993.

(2.) A complaint under section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules') was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, on 10.4.1992. According to the complaint, M/s Nagindera Trading Company, Jaitu, was dealing in Insecticides/Pesticides, who held a licence duly issued by the Licensing Authority i.e. Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot. As per provisions of the Act, dealer and manufacturer are under legal obligation to observe all provisions as contained in the Act and the Rules. Sh. Balbir Singh, Insecticides Inspector, along with Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Agricultural Sub Inspector, visited the shop of the accused disclosing their identity and intimated their desire to draw the sample of Monocrotophos 36% S.L. manufactured by ML - Industries, Ghaziabad. During checking, it was found that 30 pieces of one litre pack were lying inside the shop. Necessary papers were prepared and sample of the drug was taken. The contents were put in three separate containers duly sealed the cloth bags with metal seal. One sealed sample and one form XII was handed over to Mr. Jagdish Singh at the spot and other two portions of the sample along with Form No. XII were submitted in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer. As per analyst's report, sample does not conform to ISI specifications in respect of its percentage active ingredients, contents i.e. 30.10% instead of 36%. A copy of the analysis report was served upon the dealer as well as manufacturer along with show cause notice. This way prima facie a case of misbranded insecticide against the dealer as well as distributor was made which is now sought to be quashed by the petitioner.

(3.) REPLY of the Insecticide Inspector is on the usual lines making reference to the filing of complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking of the sample and it having been found to be misbranded etc. In reply to specific averment of the petitioner that despite request made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to send the sample for re-testing as its shelf life is likely to expire, it has been stated by the answering respondents that such a request was rightly declined as till then no complaint had been filed by the respondent and thus there were no pending proceedings. This way the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20.1.1992 is also perfectly legal. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to get the second sample tested from any other laboratory on account of inaction or callousness on the part of the respondent. Pursuance to the show-cause notice issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer, a request was made to get the sample tested from any other laboratory vide Annexure P-5. This request was made long before the expiry of shelf life of the sample i.e. May, 1992. Not only this, petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate to send the second sample for analysis even before the complaint was filed by the respondent. Somehow the Judicial Magistrate declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that it has no power to entertain such a request as no complaint has yet been instituted nor any proceedings are pending. A right to get sample reanalysed has been conferred vide sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act which reads as under :-