SUKHDEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint Annexure P-1 filed under Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Section 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1974, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon and for quashing of the consequent proceedings arising on the basis of the said complaint.

(2.) THE Insecticides Inspector checked the premises of M/s. Garg Kheti Store, Link Road, Jagraon on 25.1.1992. He took sample of Fenvelrate 20% E.C. manufactured by Ceshav Agri. Chemicals Private Ltd., Faridabad bearing Batch No. CA-17 manufacturing date July, 1991 and expiry date June, 1993, in accordance with the procedures laid down under the Act. The sample on analysis was found mis-branded as it did not conform to IS specification with respect of its active ingredient contents. Active ingredient contents were found 18.4% instead of 20%. Hence, the complaint was filed against the dealer (M/s. Garg Kheti Store, Link Road, Jagraon), distributor (Chemet Chemicals and Materials Pvt. Ltd.) and the manufacturer (Ceshav Agri. Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.).

(3.) CERTAIN dates are material and are essential to be mentioned here. These are not controverted by Darshan Singh, Insecticide Inspector in his reply. sample of Fenvelrate 20% E.C. was taken from the petitioner firm on 25.1.1992. The manufacturing date was July, 1991 and the expiry date was June, 1993. It was manufactured by Ceshav Agri. Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. having Batch No. CA-17. The complaint was lodged in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon in May, 1993. The petitioner firm through Sukhdev Kumar, partner received summons from the Court to appear for the first time on 1.12.1993. Then the sample failed as it did not conform to the prescribed standard. Show-cause notice was given to the petitioner firm on 31.3.1992. The petitioner firm gave reply to the notice in April, 1992 that it wanted to get the sample re-analysed. The complainant did not take any action on this reply and filed the complaint in the Court in May, 1993.