ASHOK BARPUJARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present petition for seeking quashing of complaint (Annexure P-2) instituted against them under Sections 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 27 (5) of the Insecticides rules, 1971 and for setting aside the order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon on 17. 10. 1997 (Annexure P-4) vide which the application of the petitioners, for dismissal of the complaint, was dismissed.

(2.) ON 24. 11. 1994, sample of Arelon 75% W. P. (Isoproturan 75% W. P.)having batch No. H 1248 manufacturing date July, 1994 and expiry date june, 1996 and manufactured by M/s. Hoechst India Limited, Bombay, was taken from the premises of M/s. Sikka Sewa Kender, Link Road, jagraon. One packet of the sample was thereafter handed over to the proprietor of M/s. Sikka Sewa Kender while the second one was sent to insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana whereas the third one was retained by Agricultural Development Officer, Jagraon. As per the report received from Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, the result showed that the net contents were 456 grams against 500 grams net prescribed on the original packet. As the sample was less in weight and less percentage ingredients contents, it was considered to be a manufacturing defect, thus, exposing the manufacturer to be liable for violating the various provisions of the Act for misbranding the insecticide. As the insecticide was manufactured by M/s. Hoechst India Limited, Bombay, persons mentioned at serial No. l (a) (b) (c) and (d) were the persons responsible on its behalf for the quantity/quality of insecticide and, thus, responsible for the manufacturing and distribution of the misbranded insecticide.

(3.) AN application was thereafter moved by the present petitioners for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the deficiency in the quantity of the insecticide did not make the manufacturer and its responsible officers liable for violation of the provisions of the Act. Further that the ingredients of the sample were found to be in accordance with I. S. I, standard. The request of the manufacturing company was, however, declined by Judicial magistrate 1st Class on 17. 1. 1997.