JHAJHAN LAL GUPTA DIRECTOR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Unique Farmaid, Private Limited, Delhi petitioner No, 2 is licensed manufacturer of an insecticide known as Monocrotophos 36% S.L. Petitioner No. 1 is its Director.

(2.) On August 17, 1989, Insecticides Inspector visited the business of M/s Bansal Radio and Company, Ellenabad, a dealer of the aforesaid insecticide being manufactured by petition No. 2 and purchased samples of the said insecticide having manufacturing date Feb. 1989 and expiry date July, 1990, in accordance with the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On being analysed the said sample was declared misbranded by the Senior Analyst Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal vide its report dated 12-10-1989 (Annexure P. 1). The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa issued a show cause notice dated 24-10-1989 along with the copy of the said report of the Analyst. After obtaining the necessary sanction (Annexure P.6), the Insecticides Inspector filed a complaint under Sections 29(1) read with Section 3K(1) of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, on 25-4-1990 against the petitioners as well as its dealer M/s Bansal Radio and Company. The Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused persons for 1-8-1990.

(3.) The petitioners, who are the manufacturers of the insecticide in question have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint (Annexure P-2), and the summoning order dated 25-4-1990 (Anenxure P.5) being the abuse of the process of the Court. It has been stated in the petition that on the receipt of the show cause notice dated 24-10-1989 the petitioners had sent a detailed reply and made a specific request for sending counter sample to the Central Insecticides laboratory, in view of the provisions under the Act for retesting purposes; that instead of sending counter sample as prayed for, the present complaint was filed against the petitioner; and that the petitioners were summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for 1-8-1990 by which the shelf life of the insecticide in question had already expired. It has been stated that the petitioners have been deprived of their valuabe right under Section 24(4) of the Act as they could not avail the remedy for getting the sample reanalysed and the complaint is liable to be quashed on this short ground.