HARI SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing complaint-Annexure P.2 filed under section 29(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) THE necessary facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 16.8.1993, the Insecticides Inspector visited the business premises of M/s Kissan Agro Agencies, Rania, and purchased a sample of Monocrotophos 36% SL being manufactured by petitioner No. 2. The sample, on analysis, was found to be misbranded. A show-cause notice along with a copy of the Analysis report was sent to M/s. Kissan Agro Agencies as well as petitioner No. 2 vide letter dated 1.10.1993. M/s. Kissan Agro Agency moved an application under section 24 of the Act and the counter sample was sent for analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, and according to the report received, the sample was found to be misbranded. After obtaining the necessary consent as required under the Act, the Insecticides Inspector filed a complaint under section 29(1) of the Act and Rules made thereunder against M/s. Kissan Agro Agency, its proprietor and the petitioners.

(3.) IN reply, the respondent-State has stated that the sample was taken in accordance with law and the rules framed thereunder, that the same was found to be misbranded by the State Laboratory, that on a request made by M/s. Kissan Agro Agency, from whom the sample was purchased, the counter sample was sent to the Central Laboratory, Faridabad, for analysis under the orders of the Court and the sample was again opined to be misbranded. It has been further stated that proper consent to prosecute the petitioners has been obtained and the provisions of Section 33 have also not been violated.