RAJINDER KUMAR SETHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been preferred under Sec. 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the Complaint No.COMA-246-2019 titled as 'State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector Vs. M/s Shiva Pesticides and Seed Store and Others' dtd. 14/6/2019 (Annexure P-8) as well as order dtd. 1/7/2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul, summoning the petitioner under Sec. 29(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the Insecticide Inspector visited M/s Shiva Pesticides and Seed Store, Village Buggran, District Bathinda on 8/7/2016. The Inspector found 37 packets of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR bearing Batch N0. F1/2, Mfg Date-June 2015, Exp Date-May 2017, weighing 5 kg each. Out of these 37 packets, the Insecticide Inspector selected 1 packet, weighing 5 kg, of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR and three samples were drawn from it, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act. Three sealed samples comprising of 250 g each bearing seal no. II/13/BTI were prepared on the same day i.e. 8/7/2016, in the presence of Sh. Sukhdev Khan, Proprietor of M/s Shiva Pesticides and Seed Store. Thereafter, one sample was deposited in the office of Chief Agriculture officer, Bathinda, the second sample was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and third sample was deposited with Assistant Plan Protection Officer, Bathinda. Each of the sample was submitted with their designated department on 26/7/2016.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the manufacturer and supplier of the pesticides, who approached this Court by way of filing a petition bearing CRM-M No.27703 of 2023 titled as M/s Fineline Agriaids Pvt. Ltd. Ahamedabad and others vs. State of Punjab' (Annexure P-10) and the complaint (supra) was quashed by this Court qua them. Learned counsel inter alia contends that the petitioner is a Store In-charge of the Godown, from where, the sample was drawn on 8/7/2016 and sent to the concerned departments on 26/7/2016 i.e. after the gap of 18 days, which is sufficient to suffocate the entire case set up by the prosecution, in view of the mandatory provision of Sec. 22(6) of the Act. Furthermore, the second reference sample was sent to the office of Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad on 21/12/2016 i.e after the gap of more than 5 months for its re-analysis. Although, the sample was found to be misbranded, however, the inordinate delay of exceeding five months is also in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 22(6) of the Act. The mandate of delivering the signed report in duplicate to the Insecticide Inspector, within 30 days as per Sec. 24 of the Act, by the Insecticide Analyst has been completely violated.