JAI CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Jai Chemicals through Ashok Kumar Mangla has filed this petition 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 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Moga, for the offences under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 and all subsequent proceedings including the summoning order.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner No. 1-Firm is carrying on the business of formulations of insecticides/pesticides at Faridabad. On 29.10.1992, Shri Pritam Singh, Insecticides Inspector, visited the shop of M/s. Sidhu Kheti Sewa Centre, Badhni Kalan, Tehsil Moga, and purchased a sample of Anilefos 30% EC (JAIFOS "A30 cc") having batch No. FD.10 consisting of three half litre packs of plastic bottles. The manufacturing date mentioned on the plastic bottles was April 92 and the expiry date March 1994. One sealed plastic bottle of the sample was sent to the Regional Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh, on 6.11.1992, which was analysed and vide report Annexure P-2 it was reported that the sample did not conform to the IS specification in its active ingredient as per requirement as it contained 27.2% instead of 30% of active ingredient. A show-cause notice along with a copy of the report of analysis is alleged to have been sent to the dealer M/s Sidhu Kheti Sewa Centre, Badhni Kalan, from whom the sample was purchased and also to its manufacturer M/s. Jai Chemicals-petitioner No. 1. After obtaining the necessary sanction-Annexure P-3 of the authority concerned, the complaint-Exhibit P-1 was filed on 12.6.1994 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Moga, against the said dealer through its proprietor and the present petitioner through its authorised signatory-Shri A.K. Mangla. The Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 12.6.1994, summoned the accused persons for 4.7.1994.

(3.) NOTICE of motion was given to the respondent. In reply, all the allegations made by the petitioners have been denied. It is stated that the sample was taken in accordance with the statutory provisions; that show-cause notice along with the copy of the report of the analyst was sent to the dealer as well as petitioner No.1-the manufacturer but no reply was received challenging the report of the Public Analyst; that proper sanction was obtained from the competent authority before launching the present prosecution and that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence after applying his judicial mind. It is further stated that since the case is pending trial in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code or the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.