JAI CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by M/s Jai Chemicals (hereinafter described as the petitioner), under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of the complaint dated 23rd November, 1992 and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate summoning it as an accused in the said complaint.

(2.) IN the complaint filed by the State of Punjab through Shri Darshan Kumar Garg, it has been asserted that M/s Shiv Narain Periwal and Sons, Abohar were dealing in the Insecticide and holding a licence for that purpose. Licence was issued by Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur. Shri Darshan Kumar Garg, Insecticide Inspector visited the shop of M/s Shiv Narain Periwal and Sons, Abohar, who is the authorised Dealer of M/s. Jai Chemicals, Faridabad. At the time of inspection, Jagat Periwal was present. Insecticide Inspector drew the sample of Jai Endosulfan manufactured by the petitioner in three seated containers of Jai Endosulfan 35% E.C. Batch No. DC-06 each containing 500 ML for sample and a seizure memo was prepared in accordance with the law. The samples were sealed with the seal of Insecticide Inspector. The Dealer refused to put his seal in the sample. The Dealer was paid the cost of the sample. One sealed sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. The report was received. It was found that the sample did not conform to the relevant I.S.I. specifications. Since the petitioner is alleged to have manufactured the misbranded Endosulfan, referred to above, it was also prosecuted.

(3.) AS per the petitioner, the complaint and the order summoning the petitioner is liable to be quashed because the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the product. The shelf life expired in June, 1992, while the complaint was filed on 23rd November, 1992. It has also been alleged that there is no sanction against the petitioner for its prosecution. A valuable right was lost to the petitioner to get the sample retested.