SINGH KHETI STORE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Bharat Pesticides Manufacturing Company, petitioner No. 5, is the manufacturer, M/s. Agro City Centre, petitioner No. 3, is the distributor and M/s. Singh Kheti Store, petitioner No. 1, is the dealer of an insecticide - Butachlor 50% EC.

(2.) ON June 10, 1991, the Insecticides Inspector, purchased 3 tins, each containing 1 litre of Butachlor 50% EC by way of sample from petitioner No. 1. The manufacturing dated thereof was May 1991 and the expiry dated April 1993. The sample on analysis was found to be misbranded vide report-Annexure P.2 Show-cause notices dated 4.9.1991 (Annexure P-3) and dated 17.7.1991 (Annexure P-3/A), along with a copy of the report of the analyst were issued to the petitioner. The correctness of the report of the Analyst was not accepted to be correct and the reply dated 18.9.1991 (Annexure P-4) and dated 27.7.1991 (Annexure P.4/A) were sent with a request to send the counter sample for testing to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. However, the sample was not sent for re-analysis by the department as requested by the petitioner. Consequently, an application dated 9.12.1991 (Annexure P.5) was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for sending the counter sample for testing to the Central Insecticides Laboratory but the same was rejected by order dated 1.4.1991 (Annexure P.6) on the ground that the application was not maintainable as no proceedings under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') had been launched by the Insecticides Inspector by that time. After obtaining the necessary sanction dated 16.1.1992 (Annexure P.7), the Insecticides Inspector filed a compliant (Annexure P.8) on 26.3.1993 before the Duty Magistrate, who in turn, directed it to be placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. On 15.4.1993, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused who are the petitioners, for 19.5.1993, i.e. the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on a date after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide in question.

(3.) NOTICE of motion was given to the respondents. In its reply, the respondents have admitted the receipt of the reply sent by the petitioners to the show-cause notices, but has pleaded that the information was sent that only a Court of law is competent for sending the sample for re-analysis. It has been further stated that a complaint was filed on a date when the shelf life of the insecticide had not expired. It has been further stated that there is proper and legal sanction to prosecute the petitioners and they are being prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of the Act.