MONGA PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this petition is for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 as well as the summoning order passed therein qua the petitioners.

(2.) INSECTICIDES Inspector, Ferozepur visited the premises of petitioner No. 1 on 25.6.1998 and took a sample of Phorate 10% G in 1 Kg. packing manufactured by M/s. Safex Chemicals (India) Limited. Three packets of one Kg. each of Phorate 10% G bearing batch No. SX-270 with manufacturing date 5/98 and expiry date 4/99 were taken for sample and thereafter sent to the Testing Laboratory at Amritsar. Based upon the analysis report, "sample does not conform to the I.S. specification in respect of its per cent active ingredient contents hence mis-branded", the impugned criminal complaint was filed against petitioner No. 1 and its partners, i.e., petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as well as manufacturer of the product, namely, M/s. Safex Chemicals (India) Limited. The petitioners, having been summoned, have approached this Court for quashing of the aforesaid complaint as well as the summoning order.

(3.) IN view of the above reproduced observations made by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that it stands established beyond any doubt that seals upon the three packets of Phorate 10G were found intact at the time when the same were taken into possession by the Insecticides Inspector from the premises of petitioner No. 1. It is, thus, contended that no fault can be attributed to petitioner No. 1 who was found selling the product in the same condition as was marketed by its manufacturer, namely, M/s. Safex Chemicals India Limited. Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 240 it is contended that once the petitioner firm has been exonerated of the allegations by the departmental authorities, its prosecution under the Act is impermissible.