M.N. MURLI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI D.S. Walia, Insecticide Inspector raided the business premises of Ms Ahluwalia Khad Store, Sri Hargobindpur on 9.12.1992. They were dealers in insecticides/weedicides under the licence issued to them by Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur. Shri Gurbax Singh was the proprietor of the said business responsible to the Firm for the conduct of the business of the firm. At the time of raid, Shri Gurbax Singh was present at the business premises. Weedicide namely 4 Ethyl Ester 34% EC Heera-44 batch No. 71 was lying in the business premises for sale to the farmers mean for use in agricultural fields. After disclosing his intention to Shri Gurbax Singh that he was Insecticide Inspector authorised to seize sample of insecticide/weedicide/pesticide from their possession through notice with a view to have the same analysed from the Insecticides Analyst/Central Insecticide Laboratory, he seized 3 sealed tins of 2-4 D Ethyl Ester 34% EC Heera-44, batch No. 71 containing 1 litre each and paid him Rs. 300/- as the price thereof. Shri Gurbax Singh gave him receipt in token of receipt of that amount and the supply of 3 sealed tins containing the said insecticide under his signatures. Each of the sealed tins so purchased was put in dry and clean polythene bags in the same condition in which slip was also put which they were. In each polythene bag formation was signed by Shri Dalip Singh Walia, Insecticide Inspector. Each of the polythene bags was secured by means of thread and was sealed with seal bearing impression No. 18 Fertilizer Inspector, Gurdaspur. One of the sealed tins was handed over to Shri Gurbax Singh. One sealed tin was deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur for record. One sealed tin was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Punjab, Bathinda for analysis through Shri Sukhwinder Singh. On analysis, sample of weedicide was found to be misbranded and not conforming to the required specifications. According to the analysis report, the percentage of active Ingredients was 26.67% EC as against 34% EC. Sample of weedicide was thus, deficient in active ingredients by 7.33% EC.

(2.) M /s. Ahluwalia Khad Store, Shri Hargobindpur was dealer in this weedicide. They had purchased this weedicide from National Pesticides, Jalandhar Road, Batala through is proprietor Anil Kumar (Distributor). This weedicide had been manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Pulverising Mills, Delhi. This weedicide had percolated to the dealer in this manner from the manfacturer. After the receipt of the analysis report, sanction was obtained as envisaged by Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 for launching prosecution against the accused from the Joint Director, Agriculture. Weedicide is covered under the Schedule of Insecticides Act, 1968 and its chemical name is 2-4-D Ethyl Ester 34% EC manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Pulverising Mills, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi under a manufacturing licence. Shri Dalip Singh Walia instituted complaint under sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 against the Dealer, Distributor and Manufacturer in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sample of weedicide was taken on 9.12.92. Complaint was instituted on 5.1.1994. Shelf life of the weedicide expired in October, 1994. By the time the manufacturer was summoned, the shelf life of the weedicide had expired. It would have been an exercise in futility in the Manufacturer had requested the court for re-analysis of the sample after appearance before the Court when the shelf life of the weedicide had already expired. It was submitted that the valuable right granted to the accused under section 24 of the of the Insecticides Act was taken away for no fault of the accused, Section 24 of the Insecticides Act reads as follows :