RAVI ORGANICS LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main thrust of the petitioner while seeking quashing of the complaint and subsequent proceedings under Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18 and 33 read with Section 29 of the Insecticides Act and Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules is that the complaint was filed after the date of expiry of the insecticide and thus a valuable right to the petitioner under Sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was lost.

(2.) ON 26.7.1997, the Insecticides Inspector visited the shop of M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals and took sample of Phorat 10% in one kilogram packing, which bore the date of manufacturing as 14.4.1997 with expiry date of 13.4.1998. The sample was subjected to examination by Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, who gave his report that the sample was mis- branded as it contained only 8.84% of active ingredients of Phorat against 10% as labelled on the packing. A copy of the report was communicated by the authorities to Shri Deepak Sharma, partner of M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals along with a show cause notice. In pursuance thereto, Shri Deepak Sharma submitted a written reply on 10.9.1997 and on the same day at the time of personal hearing, he produced a photocopy of invoice-cum-delivery challan by virtue of which he claimed to have purchased the insecticides in question in one kilogram packing from M/s. Somanil Chemicals. Accordingly, a copy of the analyst's report was also communicated to M/s. Somanil Chemicals along with show cause notice. In response to said show cause notice, a written reply was submitted by M/s. Somanil Chemicals and Chief Agriculture Officer, Amritsar was requested for re-analysis of the reference sample. After completing the formalities, the reference sample was sent for re-analysis to Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. After carrying out analysis, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemical) of Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad furnished a report, as per which active ingredients were only 8.1% as against 10% mentioned on the label of the packing from which the sample was drawn. The re-analysis report was accordingly conveyed to M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals. Thereafter on 2.7.2000, a complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed against M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals and others. The insecticide in question had been shown to be manufactured by the petitioner i.e. M/s. Ravi Organics Limited and accordingly, it was also made one of the accused, i.e. accused No. 4 in the aforementioned complaint.

(3.) IT has been submitted that the complaint was filed on 2.7.2000 i.e. much after the expiry date of the insecticide and thus a valuable right which could accrue to the petitioner under Sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act was lost. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon M/s. Raj Hans Chemicals v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR(Crl.) 139; M/s. Hindustan Pulverising Mills v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 116; M/s. Trilo Agro Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) RCR(Crl.) 632 and State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd., 1999(4) RCR(Crl.) 540 (SC).