FAUJI SEWA CENTRE GURDASPUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, retailers and petitioner Nos. 3 to 7, distributors, dealing in the sale of insecticides and pesticides filed petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the complaint Annexure P/1 dated 14-9-1990 filed by the Insecticides Inspector, Gurdaspur and subsequent proceedings taken thereunder, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur.

(2.) On 30-11-1988, Lakhbir Singh, Insecticides Inspector, checked the premises of M/s. Fauji Sewa Centre, Hanuman Chowk, Gurdaspur. He allegedly took samples of Isoproturon 75% W.P. (Milron) Batch No. 52, manufactured by Montari Industries Limited, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The said weedicide was supplied to M/s Fauji Sewa Centre by M/s. Goel Rice Mills, Gurdaspur, vide Bill No. 109 dated 22-11-1988. Notice Annexure P/2 was served on Shri Neelam K. Kalia, proprietor of the firm petitioner No. 2, which was duly signed by him. Thereafter three packets of 'Isoproturon' were purchased against Bill No. 71 dated 30-11-1988, Annexure P/3 for Rs. 420/-. The said bill was attested by the complainant and signed by Neelam K. Kalia, proprietor of the firm. The sealed packets so purchased were put in three dry and clean polythene bags and information slip was also put in each of the polythene bags which was signed by Neelam K. Kalia and the complainant. The three polythene bags were duly secured by thread and were sealed. One portion of the same was given to proprietor of the firm. Notice and form No. XII was also given to him, which was duly attested by the complainant. Sealing impression was put on each of this form prepared in duplicate. One portion of the sample was despatched to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Punjab, Ludhiana for analysis vide letter No. 19834 dated 30-11-1988. Report of the Analyst Annexure P/4 of the sample of insecticide was received on 2-1 -1989. Its copy along with the show-cause notice Annexure P/3 was given to the petitioners vide letter No. 202 dated 6-1-1989. As per the report the weedicide was found to be misbranded and as such the petitioners are said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Show cause notice dated 9-1-1989 Annexure P/3 was sent to M/s. Goel Rice Mills, Gurdaspur. Petitioner No. 1 i.e. Fauji Sewa Centre, submitted reply, Annexure P/4, on 30-1-1989, stating that neither the sample was sealed in the presence of the petitioner nor one portion of sample was handed over to them. It is further submitted that even the brand name of the insecticide has been mentioned as 'nocilon' in the report, whereas the sample is alleged to have been taken of 'milron'. Therefore, the charges in the show- cause notice are not substantiated. Complaint was filed on 24-9-1990, six days after the expiry of the shelf life of the sample. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were also served after the expiry of the shelf life of the sample i.e. after September, 1990. Petitioner Nos. 5 to 7 were not served even upto the filing of the petition. The petitioners are alleged to have been denied the valuable right of having the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory as directed under the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act.

(3.) After issuance of the notice of the petition, the Insecticides Inspector submitted his reply. In the reply it is stated that the petitioners in their reply to the show cause notice have admitted having received form No. XII, wherein the name of the insecticide is clearly mentioned as 'milron'. It is further stated that the sample was taken from the premises of M/s. Fauji Sewa Centre, after following due procedure as per the provisions of the Act. One portion of the sample along with form No. XII was given to Neelam K. Kalia in the presence of the witness Tarsem Lal. It is further stated that the petitioner had the opportunity to get the sample re-analysed as per Section 24(3) of the Act as he had been given one portion of the sample by the Insecticides Inspector well in time. None of the accused persons notified in writing in reply to the show cause notice to the Insecticides Inspector or to the Court concerned within 28 days from the receipt of copy of the report of the Government Analyst that they intend to adduce evidence in controversion of the report.